3rd year medical student

Background

My name is Leslie De La Cruz Martinez. I’m a first-year student majoring in Philosophy, Politics, Law & Economics (PPLE) at IE University. I debated Public Forum for four years at New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic. I've also coached for international and national debate tournaments. As a college student, I now debate British Parliamentary style, participate actively in MUNs and write weekly in The Stork newspaper.

FYI Before the Round

I value intelligence, confidence, proper body language, and a good tone in a debater. Show me your logical and analytical skills, and don't try to play it smart by altering evidence. I know the topic by heart, every round is your opportunity to demonstrate how your arguments connect validly to the resolution. I flow all speeches during the round, except crossfires, however, I do take them into account, and if you do make a fire point, I'll write it down. Lastly, be on time!

During the Round

I. I'll be taking your time, but please do so as well.

II. Make eye contact, at least every 20-45 seconds. Don’t just read your case, show me you know what you are talking about. Show me your strengthens and proper strategies through linking, weighing, and extending.

III. Road Maps are helpful.

IV. Impact Calculus (Probability, Magnitude, Scope, Timeframe, Reversibility) and Tag Lines are a MUST.

V. Be respectful during all crossfires and remain calm. Allow for both sides to make and answer questions. In the grand cross, all debaters should participate.

VI. Fast speed and a loud tone preferred. Clearness is nonnegotiable. Make sure you slow down and emphasize when providing any type of evidence (statistics, dates, reports, reliable/credible sources) or examples. If you speak slowly, make sure your volume is appropriate.

VII. It's good to present a Framework. If you don’t have one I’ll focus on the present standards during the around and the evidence presented in support of every argument. In the case, that you don't have one and the opposing team does, you must communicate your stand and/or suggest a framework. If you do have one, mention its significance throughout your speeches and demonstrate how it is fair for both teams in the round.

VIII. Any argument you present must be supported with relevant and credible evidence. I don't judge based on my beliefs or opinions, I'll stick to the arguments presented and the clash of ideas during the debate. It is crucial to counter the opposing team's contentions and premises.

IX. If you have a unique argument, don’t be afraid to run it, show me everything you’ve got. Any argument you presented that is not counterargued during the round, defended and well-presented won't be considered.

X. Have your evidence at hand, so the round can run smoothly and quickly. EVERYTHING you say during your speech (example: qualitative or quantitative data, important dates, or relevant examples) must be backed up by evidence. The evidence must be adequately warranted. Likewise, if the opposing team asks for evidence, I would like to see it as well.

XI. Speeches must be organized, leaving time in a speech or going over-time will affect your Speaker Points.

XII. If some of the arguments you presented were dropped, that's okay. Focus on boiling down your arguments and concisely explaining why and how you won the round.

XIII. Feel free to use any form of refutation and weighing you'd like. Reiterate the opposing team's arguments flaws and fallacies.

XIV. New arguments presented in summary or final focus won't be taken into account. Also, if standing arguments are not mentioned in summary nor final focus, I'll consider them dropped.

XV. Any doubts (questions) or attacks directed to your case by the opposing team must be responded with a defense. If you fail to do so and don't recover from it, you'll risk losing that argument.

XVI. Speaker Points:

30 - Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field. (A++)

29 - Your performance is substantially better than average. (A/A-)

28 - Your performance is above average. (B/B+)

27 - Your performance is approximately average. (B-)

26 - Your performance is below average.

25 - Your performance is substantially below average.

24 - Rude or inappropriate behavior, total lack of preparation.

Last, but not least important, be respectful (no discrimination, no insults), be professional, and be nice!

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate on coming to me before the round starts I'll be more than happy to help. Best of Luck!

**Arturo Féliz-Camilo**

Hello! I’m the head coach at Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons.

I have a background in law and have been teaching AP US History for a while. I tend to prefer economic, social, and historical arguments. Since 2013, I’ve primarily coached Public Forum (PF).

When judging, I really enjoy a good clash of ideas and creative analysis. I’m open to just about any argument, as long as you explain it clearly, warrant it, and back it up with relevant evidence. That said, being "open to anything" doesn’t mean I’m okay with distasteful arguments—keep it civil and respectful.

I don’t strictly fall into either the tech>truth or truth>tech camps. Think of me as closer to a lay judge. Just because “there’s a card” doesn’t mean I’ll automatically buy the argument. Make sure your arguments are well-explained and warranted. I need to understand what you're saying to be persuaded, so clarity is key.

Communication is crucial. If I can’t follow due to speed, I may not flow it. I usually won’t ask you to slow down because I prefer to avoid intervening, but if you’re spreading, that’s going to be a problem. I can handle a reasonably fast pace, but don’t expect to win by brute force alone.

I appreciate a respectful CX. If you need to ask for evidence, that’s fine, but don’t turn the round into an evidence battle. If you call for evidence, I hope you plan to actually use it. I listen to CX but don’t flow it. I’ll make note of interesting points in hopes they come up in the speeches. I almost never review evidence unless there’s a serious claim or ethical issue. If I feel like you misrepresented or misused a card, you’ll likely lose the round. I definitely prefer debates that are more conversational in pace.

Feel free to give an off-time roadmap—no need to ask, just go ahead.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case—don’t just read it. Weigh the arguments, link them, extend points, crystallize the round. Without clear framework and weighing, I’ll default to what’s standing at the end of the debate. Please don’t introduce new arguments in summary or final focus.

As for T's and K's, run them at your own risk. I’m not totally against them, but I tend to favor a good RVI and I’m not a fan of running these against inexperienced or novice teams. I also think T's get abused too often, so be honest with it. I’ll weigh what makes sense, including any real-world harms like abusive behavior or bad-faith misgendering.

Pettiness won’t win me over, but you should still stand your ground. A little sass is great, but there’s a fine line between sass and pettiness, so be mindful of that.

If you’d like feedback after the round, I’m always happy to share my thoughts, but know that I submit my ballots before offering feedback. I understand that some rounds (like bubble rounds) matter a lot, but I don’t check records before submitting my decision. I hope that regardless of the outcome, you leave each round feeling that it was a meaningful experience.

Please 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 with experience in both national and international tournaments. I believe framework debate is important as this makes it so ultimately the debaters themselves choose what framework is the one I should vote on. 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!

-NOTE:I am not a fan of K's, Theory and counterplans. It is highly unlikely for me to vote on one of them, I prefer for the debate to be revolved around the resolution and for both teams to clash on it.

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

Hello! I was a Public Forum debater for four years and now coach. I flow through speeches, not crossfires. If something significant happened through the crossfire address it in your next speech. Time yourself! try to finish on time. Don't spread/ add new arguments after 2nd constructive.

I don't mind if you speed, but I will be able to understand your argument better if you don't. Your speaker points depend on how well you were able to develop your case, participation in the round, and conduct. Do roadmaps if you'd like, it will not affect your speaker points if you don't. During summary and final focus make impact analysis, be persuasive! Don't just explain why you won, but between what arguments the round was drawn to.

Crossfires should maintain a sequence of relevant questions and answers from both teams. I will take speaker points off if someone presents unprofessional behavior. I like unique arguments, and if I am skeptical about something said in the round, I will ask for evidence at the end of the round.

Feel confident about what you are going to be defending or opposing. Don't forget to enjoy it!