Experience: 4 years of PF debate for Edgemont with a bit of policy, qualled to ToC senior year. Former parli debater for Dartmouth but honestly I kind of hate parli.

Things I like: Organized cases with clear terminalized impacts, fast line by line rebuttals, collapsing in summary, rhetorically persuasive final focuses

also when teams give me flow paper

Things I don't like: Sketchy extensions, poor evidence ethics, non-terminalized impacts, taking a long time to find cards

How I evaluate the round:

There are four things you need to do in order for me to evaluate an offensive argument at the end of the round.

• Cite and extend evidence on it
• Explain ur internal links (stats are insufficient without logic)
• Terminalize your impacts
• Extend it in both summary and final focus.

If you do not follow each of these steps, I will intervene against you and refuse to evaluate the argument. Yes, that means that you can lose even if you "won" the round on the flow, because I think that as a judge and thus an educator, it is my obligation to force you to win each part of an argument to win the whole thing. So, don't say "extend x contention" or "extend y link"- you must explain them. Furthermore, doing these things does not guarantee you win the argument; you obviously need to frontline responses and turns and weigh it. Consider these steps a prerequisite to accessing any offense in the round.

Other than that, I believe in:

sticky defense, presumption goes to whoever lost the flip, prefer if second rebuttal frontlines, no plans or CPs, I am open to Ks but don't really understand them, tech over truth, no new offense in summary, no new defense in ff, moderate to fast speed is ok (I'll shout clear if I need to), reading ur opponent's ev during speeches or cx is ok, no offensive overviews in second rebuttal, prefer if no conditional advocacies, no theory unless it's really egregious, paragraph theory over shell theory, scalar impacts are stupid, fully terminalized impacts. Also weigh clearly or I'll just weigh myself and I'm pretty dumb so u prob don't want that.

I love unique arguments. Please make my day more interesting, I don't want to judge remixes of the same aff and neg for the whole tournament. If you entertain me (either with your args or by being funny) I'll prob increase your speaks.

Flashing:

(I wrote this part in 2016 so idk if flashing is still uncommon but) if you flash me and your opponents a carded copy of case complete with citations and highlighting/underlining, and reads the cards verbatim, your speaker points will increase by 1.5. If you flash but don't read verbatim, they'll increase by 0.5. Finally, if you put an outline of the case up on the wiki and not the full cards, your speaks will increase by 0.5. I will be extremely receptive to theory if one team flashes and the opponents do not- you will still have to win the theory, but it shouldn't be too hard for you to do so. I hope that this policy encourages teams to share their evidence more and thus miscut their evidence less.

Calling for evidence:

I call for ev when

a) a team asks me to during round (not when the round has ended)

b) I have read the article and think you miscut it

c) I have a really hard time believing that an author actually said what you're claiming they said

d) you hinge a big part of the debate on it and I need to verify that it actually says what you are claiming it says.

If I find that you have falsified or miscut the ev, I'll drop the ev and depending on how egregious the falsification is I will give you 0 speaks and/or drop you on face. If the evidence is confusing and it's not called out, I'll probably just accept the interpretation of the evidence that makes the most sense. That's a subjective decision that you probably won't want, so I'd advise just reading good ev.

I permit teams to use the time their opponent takes to find evidence to do prep without it counting towards the two minutes. So essentially, if you take 5 minutes to find a card, you're giving your opponent a free 5 minutes of prep. Of course, this can all be avoided if you have a file with all the cards you're reading in round that you flash me.

Finally, do not falsify your opponent's evidence. That is, if you call for a card and the card is legit, don't come up with an indict that is a blatant lie. This is as bad as lying about your own card, and I'll prob drop you or give you zero speaks.

Disclosure:

I will always disclose speaks and who won as long as the tournament permits and I URGE you to ask questions about my decision. One reason that the judging pool in PF can be so screwy is because judges don't really care about the round, don't really think about the arguments, and just give half-assed decisions that they haven't really thought over. I would love it if you asked me "how did you evaluate X argument" or something like that- I try my best to think over everything, but I'm still human and may make mistakes sometimes. Chances are if you show me that I judged something incorrectly, I'll be better equipped to judge it in the future, and you just made the judging pool a little bit better. Please don't be a dick, though. I promise I'm trying my best.

Finally, If you're being a dick to your opponents I might just drop you outright. You probably don't want to risk this. Be nice.

The key for me when it comes to deciding most debates is two fold. First it is easier for me to vote for a team that weighs what is is being debated instead of just continuing to reiterate what their argument is. Well argued impacts are essential to choosing who is doing the better debating. I will look at the round objectively regardless of what I personally believe in almost every case so the way you frame your arguments and position them in the real world is very important to me.

Second, I think that since I am on the other side of the round, all I have to go on is what you're giving me; I will not do the work for you. In other words, if you make a really convincing argument in the first speech or in cross fire and you don't extend through the entire debate it or you let the other team take out the impacts without you addressing them, I can't just ignore that they're doing the better debating just because you may be right. I hope that makes sense.

As for me, I have a mostly policy background as a debater so I am good with spreading or k debate if you want to take it there, I have no real preference of specific arguments, i will hear whatever you say to me and weigh it as such. Just be respectful of everyone's space and time to speak, don't be an a**hole, and truly most importantly, have fun. I'm dead serious, if you're not having It'll just be a rough time for everyone, energies are tangible even over zoom.

Hi, my name is Lorena Dakaj

During the debate please keep in mind the following things:

- speak clearly and loudly at a moderate speed.

- be considerate of your opponent's mistakes or mispronunciations of words.

- extend arguments from summary through final focus.

- in the final focus, make it clear to me why your case is more persuasive or more informative.

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I am an external PF coach for American Heritage Palm Beach/Boca.

Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.

I definitely look at the flow to decide who wins the round, but if I think that something is not handled effectively on the flow (ex: really under-covered argumentation in response to major points in the round), I will likely vote on the truth of an argument.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.

If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!

I love hearing unique arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap unless you are running theory. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!

Please do not ask "I am first speaker, so can I have first question?" Please just assume that first speaker in the round has first question.

Please do not spread! I would prefer if the round is slower so that I can fully understand the warranting of your contentions. I prefer slow, well warranted debates over fast, blippy debates.

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Progressive Debate Rounds:

I am happy to adjudicate progressive rounds, but I strongly prefer adjudicating rounds that engage on substance within the resolution. I will adjudicate progressive rounds purely off of the flow, so all responses must be on the flow. If you run theory please clearly explain your link. For Ks, please clearly explain how the alternative is worse and how voting pro solves.

I really like a properly ran cap K. Down with capitalism!!

Feel free to run anything in front of me, but I would ~prefer~ that you not run frivolous theory.

I believe disclosure is very good unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise.

Topical puns in you speech will increase the speaker points you get.

I have previous LD and PF and Policy experience but I was not a tricks debater.

I won't vote on the K if the alt is unclear - same goes for policy advocacies. Clear solvency please.

awelton001@gmail.com for questions