Hi! I am your judge :)

I would like to be on the email chain at BrandyCarboneDebate@gmail.com

I was a pretty successful high school policy debater (carried my banker boxes a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away ...) followed by a stint of college public forum debate. I stepped away from debate until my child participated in middle school parli which returned me to judging. This is my return to policy and/or public forum as a judge. NOTE: I am more familiar with policy over pubic forum but have judged all type of debate. I am the worst at timing.

I'm a big fan of debate both as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills and as a competition. Clearly things have changed over the last 30 years. The introduction of email chains is cool, but I think it allows people to forget how to clearly speak since every word you care about can be read. We spread in the old timey time (of course) but we also had to compete in Extemp because we were not allowed to lose our ability to communicate in our policy fervor. Clue: I still consider this a speech competition.

This paradigm thing is curious. I am tabula rasa. I will take whatever argument you want to throw at me, but you have to be able to explain it, defend it and weigh it. If you want it to be important to me, you have to tell me. A sure way to lose a round with me is to leave the round to my opinion. Clue: I will vote for the team that can convince me their arguments are the best with evidence, logic and (ideally) a little reason.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them.

There are probably some current theory issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created. I am not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides. I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory. Clue: I will listen to the arguments and pick the one argued best. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters.

Final speech summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made. Clue: Weigh! Weigh! Weigh!

Good luck!

(you can email me if you want extra feedback. but i am a bit blunt at times)

Hi!

FLAY JUDGE. I coach middle school and high school public forum. I did debate myself throughout middle school and high school.

To win the round is simple! Just weigh and explain your argument to me as if I had no idea how debate works. I think debaters prioritize card dumping over good logic and analysis which is sad.

With that being said, if you plan on spreading, I would appreciate a speech doc lol.

Debate parent, former high school policy debater. Moderate to fast pace ok, will decide round based on debater speeches. Emphasis on last set of speeches

Parent judge. I’ve judged a decent amount but I’d prefer you not to spread. Keep track of your own time. Please give me voters and weigh well.

I prefer you running a traditional case. Basic counter plans are probably fine.
Good luck.

Michael Siller Paradigm

About Me: I am a parent judge on behalf of either Stuyvesant High School or the Bronx High School of Science, depending on the tournament. I am not a "technical" judge. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.

Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:

(i) Please identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.

(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly, focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.

(iii) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible.

(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.

"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged and scored on how they address the assigned topic.

Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise, professionalism, and ability to think on your feet). Concerning thinking on your feet, I pay particular attention to how well you comport yourself in cross-fire.

For purposes of sharing evidence, my email is mbsiller1@gmail.com

I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!

Hi! My name is Subah, and I'm a second year policy debater at Brooklyn Tech. I go by she/her. A little to know about me: I am a k debater and before doing high school policy debate, I used to do parli in the NYCUDL circuit.

For Policy:

Please add me to the email chain, my email: ssumaiiyat6358@bths.edu

general arguments:

I am tech>truth and will vote on anything. However, it goes without saying that racist, sexist, homophobic or any bigotted arguments will not just pass by me; even if your opponents do not point them out, I will not vote on them and will deduct speaker points.

I'm fine with open CX, and CX is binding.

Spreading is fine, but I expect your voice to be clear even when you're spreading. Slow down for overviews, card titles/authors, analytics, and rebuttal speeches.

I will default to util, so frame things.

specific arguments:

T: 2nrs on T can be really fun if they're fleshed out properly

DA: Extend links and impacts all throughout the round; I like DAs but weigh them properly in the impact calc

CP: Interested to see what kind of CPs people are using for this topic and will vote on them

K: If you’re reading a k and don’t understand/can’t explain it to your opponents, then I probably won’t vote on it. If you're running a non-generic K be sure to flesh out the links and alt.

Theory: I will vote on theory.

For Parli:

Don't miss the claim, warrant, impact for any of your arguments- if your argument is incomplete I will weigh it as only what was said.

I will always default util, so frame the debate if your position does not fit that framing.

I encourage heckles, however, over heckling will lead to speaks deduction. I expect at least one POI per constructive speech.

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.