Here are a few things I like to see in the debate:

1. PLEASE don't speak too fast. If you do, don't expect me to get all your arguments

2. Overall, be kind and have fun

Good luck, and may the best team win!

A new judge, that loves debate. I prefer not extreme speedy delivery.

she/her

- Currently a Parliamentary debater at Stuyvesant High School

- 2 years experience in middle school parliamentary within the NYCUDL for Q300 Middle School

- I am familiar with the mechanics and rhetoric of parliamentary debate. I am will judge the round purely on what is said in the round and logic/evidence provided within the round.

- POIs:

- Very highly recommended

- Should add value to the debate as a whole

- Always a question, cannot be in the form of a statement

- Never abusive (can't be too long and waste the speaker's time, can't say give an entire argument within your POI, can't bombard the speaker with POIs, etc.)

- The more POIs, generally the higher speaker score I will give you, depending on the quality of your POIs and what they add to the round

- Heckles:

- Should be substantive in some manner

- Range of 1-5 words

- Should not be abusive (do not abuse your ability to heckle, there is such thing as over heckling)

- Speed:

- Any speed of speaking is fine, but if you are talking very fast and intend to, a roadmap and signposting within your speech is best for me as the judge to flow your arguments in the most accurate way possible

Finally, all debaters should be respectful towards each other, this is an environment where we want to learn from each other and expand our knowledge from interacting with others. Please don't be disrespectful to your opponents or me as the judge.

prefer no long "off time" roadmaps

please stick to your time

looking for clear weighing of your impacts vs your opponents' impacts

avoid reading very long passages/quotes

This is just a bit about myself and debate philosophy to help you shape your approach to the round. I used to be a pretty serious debater, but I also had a lot of fun doing it, and I hope you'll have fun as well, while at the same time, delivering thoughtful arguments backed by solid evidence (or at least strong logic and common sense). For novices: don't worry if you don't have a lot of experience debating yet! You'll get there, and it helps to stumble sometimes. That's how we learn and grow in any practice. If you have any questions before the round, feel free to ask.

Experience:

Former middle and high school debater in the late 70's with lots of national tournament experience.

POI:

Keep it brief, purposeful, and polite. Don't do it for the sake of distracting your opponent.

Heckling:

I don't think it has a place in debate so I recommend refraining from it when I'm judging. Any behavior that resembles mocking or laughing at an opponent will be frowned upon (but not heckled).

Dropped Arguments:

I take notes using a flow chart format and recommend you get into the habit of taking notes this way during the debate if you don't already. It helps with keeping you on point, organizing your responses, and for me it also helps me identify arguments that have been dropped along the way. Generally, if I see that an argument has been dropped, that's a strike.

Evidence:

If you use documentation like a scientific study or news report, make sure it's reputable and not taken out of context. For example, a quotation on the safety of plastics conducted by a chemical company that produces plastics published in American Airlines In-Flight Magazine might be questionable on several levels. Be super aware of where you're drawing evidence from.

PF/Parli Paradigm for NYCUDL

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Selena. I competed in LD debate for Millburn High School (NJ). Some miscellaneous things to take into consideration:

- I evaluate only the arguments you make in round without using my own knowledge and opinions.
- Weigh/compare between arguments! This is where a large portion of rounds come down to.
- Signpost your responses; it makes them easier to flow.
- I will be very happy if you run a framework and execute it correctly.
- A team once called me "your honor." Please don't do this or anything similar. "Selena" or "judge" is fine.
- If you have any questions before or after the round, ask or email me! I'll be happy to provide information and feedback.

Circuit LD Paradigm

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Tl;dr I look for the path of least intervention to the ballot. Good for phil/theory, fine for clash debates, bad for K v K and larp v larp. I'm less tricky as a judge than I was as a debater; you need to have fully fleshed-out warrants. I AM BAD AT FLOWING FAST SPREADING.

Generic
These are all subject to change depending on what is argued in round. I try to default to what both debaters seem to assume, but absent that:
- Tech > truth
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
- Truth testing ROTB
- Permissibility and presumption are the same thing and both negate
- All pre-fiat impacts (theory, T, K, independent voters) are on the same layer. You need to weigh between them.
- If I don't understand your case after your constructive, I won't expect your opponent to predict your massive rebuttal extrapolation.
- I don't think many things are abhorrent to argue, but I will be biased against args that are legitimately terrible (ex. an entire case that explicitly supports racism, call-out cases).

Larp
- I'm bad at evaluating policy. Please overexplain. And if you're against another larper, I'm praying that one of you uplayers.
- I can, however, evaluate util just fine. In fact, syllogistic util can be quite persuasive against Ks.
- Default to epistemic confidence, yes judge kick, zero risk does exist.
- I have a lower threshold for winning calc indicts than most judges. Util debaters undercover them.

Phil
- Love it. I'm most familiar with Kant, determinism, and skep, and I'm somewhat familiar with most other common FWs, but feel free to run whatever.
- This does not mean you can get away with weak explanations. When I say I like judging phil, it doesn't mean I'll fill in the gaps for you.
- Calc indicts <3

K
- Not the most experienced with Ks, but I'm not opposed to them.
- I view Ks as frameworks. That means when going for a K, you should try to frame it as a phil NC - i.e., heavier on the line-by-line as well as explaining why your offense is relevant and theirs isn't.
- I don't understand why so many K 2Ns have enormous overviews at the top that just explain what the K says and don't explain what implications the arguments have on the round.
- Pathos is not offense.

Theory
- I like theory. I'll vote on almost any shell if it's well-justified. SLOW DOWN ON BLIPS.
- Defaults: drop the argument, competing interps, no RVIs, norm setting > in-round abuse, text > spirit. You should read your own voters, but if both debaters seem to be at an implicit consensus that something is/isn't a voter, I'll default to that.
- Terminal defense on theory, even under a competing interps model, is sufficient for me to ignore a shell. In other words, I don't default to risk-of-offense framing, but you can always argue otherwise.
- It is much harder to get me to vote on independent voters and paragraph theory compared to regular theory shells. A one or two-sentence argument likely doesn't have enough warranting for a full collapse in rebuttal, but I don't have anything against independent voters if you warrant and impact out the initial argument.

Tricks
- I'll vote on them if there's a warrant in the constructive speech. A lot of times there isn't, like "negating denies the antecedent of the resolution, and statements with false antecedents always have true consequents, which affirms" is literally just words. Yeah I know it's condo logic, but I'm not doing that work for you.
- Keep the debate clean pleeease
- If you extemp a random a priori in the middle of the AC, I probably won't catch it. Just put it in the doc.

I was a public school teacher for 10 years, and I am currently the senior programming manager at the New York City Urban Debate League. I've judged and coached in public forum, parliamentary, and world schools formats. Please address your opponents arguments clearly and impact. Be respectful and avoid personal attacks.

Hi y'all - I'm a junior at Stuyvesant High School and I've been doing LD for three years now. I primarily read policy positions with the (very) occasional K or NC. I’m decent at debate, got 2 bids, not the best flower

quick prefs

1 - policy

1 - policy v k

2 - ks

3 - kvk

3 - theory

3 - Phil

5 - tricks

Your cards should be cut properly and I want them - email at dzheng50@stuy.edu.

Tech > truth, conceded args with complete claim warrants impacts are automatically true and I’ll treat it as so. Key word: COMPLETE WARRANTS. My favorite positions to eval are in depth policy debates and clash debates. Embedded weighing is fine but do the work for me.

good with flex prep

im not the best flower - I flow on laptop and you should be as clear as possible. Im very expressive when flowing

Don't steal prep, time yourselves, and have fun! Don’t do anything offensive - depending on the level of severity, first offense is tanked speaks and repeated offense is a hot L with the lowest speaks possible.

terminal defense/zero risk is possible and I’m more sympathetic to it than most - willing to pull trigger on presumption given a well executed case 2nr

link/internal level analysis > impact analysis

Turns case is the best weighing mechanism, followed by timeframe

Don't spread unless your opponent is okay with it. (For novices and JV)

Theory defaults

dta, no rvis, competing interps

p and p negate

default TT

T > theory > role of the ballot > fw > substance

For speaks:

be nice

impact turns (if executed well)

Good ev comparison

Good strategy

Case 2nrs