I have been a member of the National Speech and Debate Association for 18 years. I grew up doing speech, and as a teacher, moved more into the direction of coaching debate. I love this activity, and I am genuinely rooting for every team that I judge.

I currently coach a large, successful middle school debate team in Harlem, where we do mostly Parli.

1. I appreciate cases that convey a sense of originality of analysis, clarity, and authenticity.

2. When it comes to any data-based evidence, I am going to be more swayed by the narrative you create around the numbers than the numbers themselves.

3. I appreciate thoughtful research, but when it comes down to it -- perhaps it is all the time I spend coaching Parli -- I am easily pulled into the world of ideas and logic. I will have a longer leash for more philosophical reasoning than many PF judges.

4. Whenever I experience PF debate, I am so impressed by the way the best teams are able to manage their time-- because you have so little to work with. Do not be afraid to let things fade from the round in order to focus the round into the real voting issues.

5. In crossfires, get underneath the premise of your opponent's argument rather than the splitting hairs or (in most cases) getting into the nuances of the validity of the evidences. Force concessions from your opponent.

6. Create legitimate clash. Show me the contrast between the worlds of yours and your opponents. Make the contrast obvious to me.

5. As you speak, engage me naturally on a human-to-human level, and read my reactions. (I'm told I am fairly easy to read)

I debated at Lexington High School for four years. First in novice policy, and then 3 years in public forum. I've gotten to bid rounds, got bids, and broken at multiple national tournaments so I have some idea of how to debate. I finished my senior year getting 5th speaker at NDCA and 3rd place team overall. I attend University of Maryland, College Park, with a major in goverment and politics, and a minor in rhetoric. I currently do Parlimentary debate there.

Short Version-

I try to intervene and put as little work into the round as possible. If you make it easy to vote for you I probably will and the easier it is the higher your speaks will be.

One big thing that is pretty make or break in my eyes: Don't do anything that makes debate unwelcoming for anyone, e.g. racism, sexism, etc. I think debate is a really valuable activity and therefore it should accessible to everyone, so making people feel unwelcome/unsafe is a big issue. There have been times where I have been a jerk in round without realizing or things got heated when they shouldn't have, so I get how it can happen. I will probably not drop you for that alone, however, your speaks will suffer and I will find it far more difficult to justify voting for you. That said, there is a difference between saying something accidentally boneheaded in CX/something comes out really wrong/etc. and making an argument rooted in racist/sexist/etc. ideology.

Beyond that, I don't really have many preferences in terms of the actual arguments you go for (nothing too ridiculous or stupid pls, or at least make it funny if you're gonna be dumb lmao), but I may in terms of speaking and articulation of those arguments. Be clear, be clever, extend your warrants, weigh, and interact with your opponents arguments and my ballot should be easy for you.

Long Version-

This is not an exhaustive list of the things that you should/should not do in round, so use your common sense and good judgement. Try to debate as well as possible.

Specific Preferences:

-Be nice, don't be a jerk, share crossfire/CX, make the debate bearable to watch, this also ties into the whole debate as a welcoming activity point that I made above (no racism, no sexism, you get the idea).

-The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so cuz I'm lazy. That said, if the round isn't clear I will intervene as much as I need to, in order to find a winner, and you may not like my decision so don't make it necessary.

-Building off of that, the easier it is to watch a debate and the more fun the round is for me the higher your speaks will be, so don't make the debate miserable

-You can talk fast so long as you are clear, but don't spread cuz you won't be clear, if you're going too fast I will say clear and you should slow down or else I'm gonna miss stuff on the flow and that isn't good for you.

-Extend your arguments, I can flow as fast as you can talk, but if you really want me to get something, slow down and emphasize it and tell me why its important.

-I don't care if second rebuttal doesn't respond to everything that first rebuttal put on case, I don't consider it dropped but try to cover what is important

-Also please extend warrants and refer to your cards by their arguments as well as author name, saying "extend [author name], this means we win" is a terrible argument. Tell me why you win and what your cards mean, give me warranted analysis.

-I really dig analytics as arguments, but if it directly conflicts with evidence I probably side with evidence (i.e. "we have evidence of an increase in X" "but "X isn't increasing" is a bad analytic)

-If there are analytical reasons (read warrants) why there argument is wrong or misapplied, or their warrants are bad or non supportive, I would love to consider analytics ("we have evidence of an increase in X", "but increase in X doesn't solve because..." is a good analytic)

-Basically, if warrants are good, you make clean extensions, you collapse in summary/final focus, and you give me clear reasons why you are winning, my ballot is pretty easy.

-Being funny is always a plus but please prioritize showing respect to your opponents and the activity first, winning second, and being funny after all that.

I also got out spoken by my PF partner (Peter Lawrence) all of senior year!!!

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.