*assume I don't know the topic or the literature/arguments surrounding the resolution*

Email: achoi07650@gmail.com

1. Tech v. Truth

- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech

- always assume I don't know anything

- generally not an interventionist judge

2. Positions

Disads - cool

Counterplans - cool except in PF

Kritiks - cool

Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesn't know how to respond (@ novices/middle schoolers)

Topicality - will rarely vote on it

3. Speed + Evidence

- any speeds fine but plz it's public forum shouldn't be spreading

- I probably won't call cards but you never know

- plz don't plagiarize + know the rules of evidence

4. Speaks

- will give high speaks for nice round :)

- if y'all chill expect 28+

- if y'all rude/disrespectful/purposely making someone feel uncomfortable expect nothing higher than a 25

5. Basic stuff

- please weigh

- I ain't tolerating problematic behavior in my rounds. You know what this means. Please be respectful, this event ain't life or death depending on a win.

- I beg, please don't excessively call for cards. I take the whole round into perspective and a card probably will not change my decision and if it will, I'll call for it myself. However, do what is in your best interest.

6. Digital stuff

- Usually tournaments say camera on (I believe) but if not I don't care whether or not your camera is on or off. I will keep my camera on unless something wild occurs.

- If you experience lag I may interrupt your speech for you to repeat something. Don't be flustered if I ask you to repeat something it is important for me to hear it :).

- Say if you need me to accommodate something. I'm fairly flexible as long as it is agreeable with everyone and the tournament staff/guidelines.

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.

Hello,

As of currently, I'm an active PF debater and I've been debating for over 3 years. With this, I've competed against all types of opponents and met different types of judges, which is why I understand how crucial it is for debaters to read their judges paradigms and ether change or keep their debate style the same. With that being said, I hope this will inform you what kind of Judge I will be, and if you are unclear by anything stated here don't hesitate to ask before the round starts.

Firstly, I'm exceptional at flowing therefore, don't be afraid to spread in a round with me, as long as you are speaking in a coherent manner that I and your opponent can understand your speech. If I truly don't understand you and it's fairly rare that I don't, I will stop flowing in that moment until you're intelligible again. I understand you may have a lot of material to cover, but please be considerate of you're opponents and judges, it will really hurt you if neither party understands you, let alone your argument.

Secondly, I understand you want me to buy into your argument so you will be assertive in your position which is expected, however be mindful that I will not tolerate aggressive behavior especially an attack on your opponents character. Any attack made on a persons race, nationality, religion, or gender, will be taken seriously and your speaker points will be proof of it. Additionally, debate is about being persuasive, respectful, and articulate which is why some debaters receive such high speaks for exhibiting these traits.

Thirdly, I am a firm believer in allowing debaters to have crossfire to themselves, thus I will not be flowing. That being said, anything 'ground breaking' that happens in crossfire, must be brought up in rebuttals, summary or final focus. I will most likely never intervene, raising your voice is fine as long as we're in a private setting and not sharing a room with other debaters but screaming won't get you too far.

Now when it comes to the argument itself, please weigh your arguments; tell me why that your point is important, and emphasize your impacts so judges can clearly flow them throughout the round. Anything mentioned in Final Focus, should be derived from Summary, anything new will not be considered.

Finally, it would be easy to say to have confidence in oneself, because debates can be nerve-racking, but I am a very easy going, approachable person and I have a pretty good sense of humor, so don't be too nervous. Being confident will put you and your partner at ease, and will help me buy into your case. I won't roast your whole argument if I give any feedback, but please take any suggestions I make as constructive criticism, because debate is about learning, improving, and adapting but most importantly to have fun! Lets make the round fun and lively, as well as a learning experience for us all!

Good luck!!

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

I have judged PF for the last 6+ years, over 100 rounds and run many judge trianings.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

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.