Hello debaters,

I am currently a 2nd year Medical Student. I've been actively participating in Model UN, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas for 4 years; I'm currently coaching and judging Public Forum. Likewise, I like to think of debate as an empowering experience for both the debaters and the judges, so be respectful to the activity we all love.

I love clashes between arguments; boil down your arguments and tell me explicitly why you won the round and on which terms. Explain and analyze every piece of information even though I might already know what you're talking about. I deeply enjoy the use of fallacies while refuting evidence. I'm most likely to vote for you if your argument is wrapped around the extensive use of statistics and logic. Furthermore, I don't mind spreading, but I prefer if you could read at a leveled speed and tone; the debate is not about throwing arguments at my face, but about connecting them to the resolution at hand.

I understand the frustration of debaters when they encounter biased judges, this is why I completely place my beliefs aside; feel free to run any argument you like, at the end of the day the ballot doesn't depend on your beliefs, but on how you run your arguments and apply your knowledge into the round. I don't like Ks, I think they take away from the value of Public Forum, nevertheless, I will flow them (I just might not buy them). Likewise, I like to say I'm tech> truth, but if the tech is ridiculous, I'm not buying it.

Specifics on speeches:

1. I weigh the round on the established framework and how the speakers appeal to it.

2. All impacts should be warranted, linked, and with In-text citations to be valuable in my ballot.

3. All forms of refutation are good with me as long as they are sustained with factual evidence and quantification

4. Arguments dropped in the summary will not be taken into consideration in my ballot.

5. The Summary should be a weighing machine in the round, weighing done only in the final focus will not be considered in the round.

6. I am very flexible when it comes to final focus, so just tell me why you won, and you should be good to go.

General:

1. CXs can be as aggressive as you want but don't cross the line. Being disrespectful will have effects on your speaker points. (pls make it interesting for me)

2. Time yourself

3. If you are asked for evidence try to show it quickly. (I'll prefer if you say you can't find it, instead of spending 5 mins of the round looking for it)

4. Personal insults, projections against debaters, intentional misgendering, discrimination, or pettiness will be penalized by taking speaker points off (and you'll probably lose the round).

5. Be on time to the round.

6. I don't flow CXs, but I do take them into consideration for weighing my ballot.

7. Please don't add me to email chains or links. Just share the evidence in the round, and I'll be happy.

8. As I said, I've been debating for a long time, so don't try to create PF rules, I know them.

Have fun, debate is a wonderful experience!

(+1 speaker point if you make a Friends or TikTok reference)

Arturo Féliz-Camilo

I studied and practice law, hold two law degrees and teach History. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching (mostly PF) since 2013 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste. Allow me to further clarify this point. I am not going to buy any argument just because "there's a card". That's not enough for me. You have to persuade me, you have to warrant your claims.

I believe communication is key. If I can't understand it due to speed, I won't flow it. I won't ask you to slow down. I almost never intervene. Debate should not be about brute force your opponents into submission, but about a clash of ideas.

I really enjoy a civil CX. Ask for evidence if you must, but don't make the round an evidence match. If you call for evidence I hope you're planning to do something with it. I listen to CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech. I almost never review evidence, unless there's a claim by one of the teams, and then I must. I'll go with what's in my flow. I do admit that having the cases help me flow, but I mostly flow what you read.

It's ok to offer an off-time roadmap, just don't take a minute doing so. Quickly give it and move on. Don't ask. Just do it.

Once more. Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end. Don't bring new arguments to summary. I won't flow them. Don't bring new arguments to final focus. I won't flow it.

I'm not in love with Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I think too many debaters are running disclosure in a dishonest way. All that said, I will buy anything that makes sense, including abusive behavior, bad faith misgendering, and anti-violence. I am not absolutely closed to theory, but I'll usually only buy it if it's run in good faith, and not as a strategy to win a round.

Pettiness will not win me over, but you gotta stand your ground. Sassiness is awesome, but the line between the two is just so thin. You want to win your round? Be smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, and strategic. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

If at the end of the round you want me to explain how I gave or not gave you the ballot, I will absolutely do it in good faith, but I will not debate you, or change my mind. Once I start disclosing, the ballot is already in, so trying to persuade me at that point is not productive.

Add me to your evidence chain arturo@arturofeliz.com

I am a former debater for the New Horizons Debate Team in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. I have experience in both national and international tournaments. I prefer for each team to have their own framework and for them to really clash on it so ultimately the debaters themselves choose what framework is the one I should vote on (I consider a framework to be a really important thing in the debate, FYI). Please weigh the round as having me weigh it for you may not go in your favour. I am a judge who while flows all of the debate also takes into consideration performance and how the debaters managed themselves in the round when casting a ballot. Proper etiquette is a must. Ultimately, remember to have fun!

SPEECHES:

For the speeches, I personally don't mind debaters talking fast, but only if they are understandable. If you can't handle the speed then slow down cause it is of utmost importance for me, as a judge, to be able to understand the strong points that you have so enthusiastically prepared.

CROSSFIRES:

I don't mind you standing your ground in crossfires, but you need to be able to maintain professionalism throughout the cross. If you want me to consider a point introduced or discussed in the cross you must extend it in your speech. I prefer for debaters to stand during crossfires, including grand crossfires(Doesn't apply to covid era debates for obvious reasons). I really don't mind heated crossfires as long as I can understand what is happening. In the grand crossfire, it is recommended for both speakers to speak.

FINAL SPEECHES:

I prefer and encourage teams to start outweighing the round since the end of the summary. In the last speeches, while it is good to mention and state how your opponents have lost, it is always better to focus more on how YOU have won the debate.

PREP TIME/SPEECH TIME:

Just for you to know, I am keeping track of your timers and if you exceed them by a considerable amount speaker points will be deducted from you. It is okay to finish a sentence if you already started it, but not okay for you to randomly extend your speech by 30 seconds. For prep time I am a bit more strict, you won't get even a single extra second for prep.

EVIDENCE:

Unless I consider that a piece of evidence can decide the round or one of the teams tells me to look at the evidence I would generally abstain from reading any evidence. As for teams who request evidence, if it is a weird argument I understand you may want to look at a specific piece of evidence. But, for teams who ask for an entire case worth of evidence, you will see a speaker points reduction, we came to debate not to wait 4 minutes between them searching and you reading cards after every speech.

Hello!

A little background about me... I was a Public Forum Debate Coach until recently, and was a PF debater myself.

On to preferences..

If you present an argument/statistic, make sure you have evidence to back it up. Any evidence that is asked I will also ask to see. If there is some information that seems wrong to me, or manipulated, I will ask for it and if it turns out to be foul play you will automatically lose the round. Make sure all evidence is warranted. I weigh numbers more than I do words. Also, I discourage link chains. (Having to prove 3+ links to get to your impact.)

Clear and fast-paced speeches are my preference. However do not spread, I will not flow.

During crossfires, I like civil interactions between teams. Though please keep it interesting. Be sassy and clever, but not abusive. Make me laugh and I'll give you 2 extra speaker points. Also in Grand-cross, both partners should speak. Everyone should be taking their own time and staying within the speaking times.

If an argument or impact is not mentioned in Summary I consider it dropped. Period. If it is mentioned in summary but not carried through to final focus, i also consider it dropped. No new arguments will be accepted after rebuttal.

Frameworks are a must. If you don't do Framework weighing/comparisons in rebuttal and/or summary adequately i will choose my own. Make sure your framework is clear to me. Impact calculus(i.e. probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, impact short circuiting, reversibility, etc.) is ESSENTIAL in summary and final focus. Tell me what you win and why you win it, and why you win it better than the opposing team does.

USE TAGLINES, in every speech. No exception. Make sure your speeches are organized.

I love a good argument/impact turn, pointing out non-uniqueness, slick stuff like that.

Do NOT leave time in a speech. Do NOT go over your time. I will keep your time; however, please do so as well. If you keep talking past your time and do not stop when I ask you to, I will be decreasing your speaker points significantly.

That's about it, if you have any questions or concerns I'll be happy to briefly answer them before the round begins.

Most importantly, have fun!

María Jimenez

I studied and practice law. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching PF since 2017 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste.

I believe communication is key. If I can't understand it due to speed, I won't flow it. I won't ask you to slow down. I almost never intervene. Debate should not be about brute force your opponents into submission, but about a clash of ideas.

I really enjoy a civil CX. Ask for evidence if you must, but don't make the round an evidence match. If you call for evidence I hope you're planning to do something with it. I hear CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end.

I'm not in love with Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I think too many debaters are running disclosure in a dishonest way. All that said, I will buy anything that makes sense, including abusive behavior, bad faith misgendering, and anti-violence.

Pettiness will not win me over, but you gotta stand your ground. Sassiness is awesome, but the line between the two is just so thin.

You want to win your round? Be smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, and strategic. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

email: mariaalexandrajimenezcano@gmail.com

I'm a former PF debater and MUN delegate from Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons, Santo Domingo. Currently studying law at Universidad Iberoamericana (UNIBE). I have quite a bit of experience, so feel free to use technical arguments and debate jargon if you wish.

I prefer arguments with lots of quantification (especially economic), but when it comes to what the argument is about, you can do whatever you want. As long as you can prove that the argument works, my opinion and position on any topic you touch isn't going to affect your ballot. And I'm perfectly fine with any and all topics, so if you couldn't use your argument with a TW list on past rounds, now's your chance.

Weigh impacts in summary and FF (and please don't literally summarize the round in summary). If you didn't include something in summary, don't include it in FF. I used to be second speaker, so make sure to ice out your rebuttal and FF.

Be ready to show cards.

I consider myself to be pretty OK with most of the shenanigans that occur in PF, so whatever you do, just be sure to do your best. Regardless, here's some pointers to follow in your round if you also want to secure good speaker points with your ballot:

TIME: I will be keeping both speech and prep time.

- Use all of your time in speeches. If you leave speech time, it'll cost you speaks.

CROSSFIRES: I don't flow them, but a good amount of your speaks will be riding on your performance. If I find any point, answer, or question made in a crossfire extremely critical, I will jot it down, but if you want to be sure I include something in my flow, extend it in a speech.

- I love me an aggressive crossfire, but keep it civil and don't be rude. No yelling. Please. If you yell, that's points off.

- No looking at your opponents.

- Both speakers must speak on grand crossfire.

SPEED: I can handle speed as long as you don't spread too hard. Be sure to emphasize and slow down on important points or quantifications so that I don't miss them in my flow. As long as you speak clearly and articulate, there's no problem.

SPEAKING: Gotta have a strong speech game.

- Match your volume to the room you're in and to your distance from me—do project your voice, but don't yell.

- Make sure to use proper intonation and emphasis on important points you want me to pay extra attention to.

- Regardless of your speed, articulate well and keep your pronunciation correct.

- Unless it's in constructive, try not to read off your laptop/papers.

BEHAVIOR: Keep it civil, but don't take it too seriously.

- Don't be a bully and don't be rude to your opponent. Sass is fine though. If you want to make a funny comment about something your opponent said, don't be mean. I might find it funny even if it's mean, but still.

- If you make me laugh, you'll get speaker points.

- Above all, have a lot of fun. It makes the round all the better for me, for your opponents, and for you.

Good luck! You've probably heard this a million times, but don't focus too much on winning or losing, focus instead on learning and improving yourself as you gain more experience with each round. The only occasion in which you'll have truly lost is when you come out of a round without picking up on at least one new thing. Be humble and open to learn from those more experienced than you, but always strive to surpass them as you move on to the next round.

"If you want to grow, just look above you. There are plenty of people perfect to serve as fodder for your growth."

-Kojiro Shinomiya

Hello,

I've been teaching PF for 4 years at an initial level.

I will flow the debate, but consider me as a lay judge. Or something in between.

I don't like spreading. If I don't understand you, your argument just won't be on my ballot. I don't feel capable of judging theory properly, run it at your own risk.

Rebuttal is for refuting. You can extend or add arguments, but you need to refute, otherwise you are risking losing the debate before 2nd crossfire. 2nd rebuttal frontlines 1st rebuttal.

Always outweigh in your final speeches. Even if you are winning the debate by a mile at the link level.

Please signpost when you are refuting arguments (it makes it easier for me).

Don't say that something didn't happened when it did ("they didn't respond to..."). I consider that lying.

You can be aggressive but keep it respectful. As long as you are attacking the arguments and ideas and not the person, it's all good.

Have fun and make it a great debate.

Background

I debated PF for four years at New Horizons in the Dominican Republic. Now a college student at Fordham University, I as well am a middle school and high school debate coach.

Fast, OPTIONAL ways to gain rapport with me in any debate format:

If you're funny, you got a lot going for you. Or if you can quote comedy shows or vines [Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Modern Family, honestly almost anything from tik tok) in a funny way, you will definitely make me happy. Just make sure you understand the difference between humor and making fun of someone. Adding to that I am a HUGE fan of quality turns to arguments and even CA. Again all of these are optional and by no means are you to feel obligated in doing so.

Arguments

Relax, feel free to run whatever you like in front of me. I firmly believe that judging is about evaluating the arguments made in the round. But as mentioned previously, please take note that whatever the argument is, it has to be counterargued at least once for me to take it into consideration.

Flow

Being a flow judge, my flow will consist of three things:

#1 Warranting: Each time an argument is presented, I will only consider it part of the round if it is explained. If you just briefly touch over the concept without details it won't count as an argument to me. Your best chance to warrant these arguments will always be during Constructive or Rebuttal (sometimes even CX). If a new argument and warrant are added after those two speeches, It is very rare for me to take them into consideration.

#2 Impacts Calculus (IC): When trying to convince me of any argument, your best shot is through IC. Make sure to tell me exactly why you win and to what extent. Also, don't forget signposting for this part. It doesn't have to be too long of an intro, but just make sure to mention it (Ex: Quantification: x and y)

#3 Responses: If you did the two things mentioned above and never kept defending those arguments, then good luck getting my vote for them. If the opposing team questions, doubts, or attacks your argument, by all means, you should respond it with defense. Un-responding would just give the point to the other team.

Framework

I don't really mind if you do or don't have a framework. Just keep in mind what you think is best for your case. If you do not agree with the opponent's framework make sure to voice it, tell me why, and give a suggestion. On the other hand, if you do have a framework make sure to mention why it matters. Also, all frameworks should be giving both teams the opportunity to win the round, please make it fair. Yet, if it is an unfair framework and it goes unargued I will not take away any points. (the same thing goes for any definitions)

Speed

I don't really mind speed. I am okay when flowing, though my only wish is to please emphasize and slow down a bit when regarding any important matters through your tone. (Ex: quantification, crucial evidence, etc) This way I'll make sure to write it down in my flow.

Speaker points

Everyone starts at 28

30 – I applaud, you truly spilled all the tea

29 – I think you deserve to break

28 - If y'all chill

27 – Speeches were ok but disorganized. No signposting and smooth flow of ideas. OR crossfire was messy and unprofessional.

26 – I think you should really practice more.

25 - I will tell you at the end of the round why I am giving you this, in all...

24 and below: If you're rude or purposefully disrespectful, consider yourself lucky if you just get a 24.

Crossfire

I don't mind some small interruptions (keyword on "small") during CX's. Crossfires should not be taken too aggressively, please let both sides make and answer questions. Use your three minutes wisely, keeping your professionalism intact. I have no problem with histrionic rounds but please don't overdo it :)

Speeches:

Please please please, speak up, I'm kind of deaf and really appreciate a clear and well-volumed speech.

Rebuttal: emphasize and extend why the opponent's arguments are wrong or irrelevant. You are more than free to use Debate terms (non-unique, short link circuit, etc.)

Summary: It's the key to the debate for me. Include impact calculus and remember to NOT add any new arguments in both Summary or Final Focus.

Final Focus:

NO new arguments should be added that were not mentioned in Summary or Rebuttal. Mention everything that was stated in the Summary and how yours is outweighing theirs (IC). Lastly, some information about the Grand-Cross could be reargued to clear anything up, but should not be the main focus.

Good luck guys!