Speed is not a problem, but card titles should be read slowly. I value debaters who help weigh the harms/benefits of a plan for me. I prefer closed debates so that debaters are not talking over one another, and so that I can evaluate each person's CX skills.

Great job in your presentation.

Hi I'm Sabrina :)

I am currently a debater at JBS Law Magnet

As a judge I just want to see arguments clash and overall the side that is argued more impactful. Any hateful speech will result in an automatic loss and low speaking points.

Any question- email me at Sabrinabhattara06@gmail.com

Clarity vs. Speed

Understanding of the arguments

Organized

Engaging and persuasive communication

Refutation that is relative to the topic 

Teamwork

General:

Debate is all about listening respectfully and responding respectfully. Debates should be civil and proper, and if debaters are not, speaker scores will reflect this.

I strongly encourage telling me how to evaluate the round. Tell me why I should evaluate that way and how you win if I choose to do so. In the instance that this is not done, I will default to standard mechanisms such as Magnitude of impacts, Net benefits, Time frame, Probability, etc. During the last R speeches, I favor direct impact comparison and attack. Show me why your case is better than theirs, don't just present both.

I favor clarity over speed; it doesn't matter how good your argument is, if I can't understand what you are saying it is moot.

I do my best to protect teams against new arguments, but you should still call them out.

I encourage, approve of, and crave clash in a round; if you are able to give that to me, I consider it a great round no matter the outcome.

I am against so called "time waster" args. Don't introduce something solely as a decoy.

Oratory skills are just as important as argumentation and research skills.

T:

If you bring up T, be prepared to fight for it. I enjoy answers to T that give unique reasons as to why one should support the counter-interpretation. I hold topicality to a high standard, and do my best to give it primacy, so long as it is relevant.

CX:

I encourage Open CX, though I believe the majority of the contribution should come from the debaters who are supposed to be participating. In my opinion, CX is best used to demonstrate your opponent's weakness, not to prelude your arguments. The line between the two is very fine and hard to find, but it can be found. I am fine if you are asking for clarification as well. However, don't ask inane questions, make sure you have a motive behind each question.

K's:

I'm not the best judge to read high theory or obscure K's to. Explain with clarity and exceptional structure and I will evaluate them fairly. To win my ballot with a K: link, impact, competition of the alt, and solvency of the alt must be won.

Speaker Points:

Generally, my evaluation will be influenced by debaters' particular level of proficiency; In other words, I will judge novices less strictly than intermediates or advanced debaters. Usually I start with total points, and move down based upon demonstrated skills. Here are few things that will increase a debaters chances at high speaker points:

-Divide the Neg Block

- Impact calculus

- Keep my flow clean: i.e. Signpost frequently

-Structured and pre-meditated CX. (Don't just steal prep with questions that don't further the debate).

- Be respectful and have an amiable disposition towards your opponents.

ANY RUDE, IMPOLITE, AND MEAN BEHAVIOR WILL RESULT IN THE LOWEST SCORE I CAN GIVE.

Overall:

I love strong argumentation, creative and unique responses, and friendly clash. Debate is all about amicable non-concurrence. I am generally lenient with technological issues; I do not count the time it takes to exchange evidence as part of prep.

GOOD LUCK!

TAG '25

~4 years policy debate experience + some world schools

I will flow your round. If you want advice on flowing/ basic debate things, feel free to ask me any questions after the round is over if we have time. I will try to leave a detailed reason for decision on tabroom.

Talk as fast or as slow as you want. Please speak loudly enough for me to hear you (I will let you know if this is an issue). Also, be respectful to your opponents.

I'm a stock issues judge, unless you give me a reason to switch paradigms. I like to think I'm a blank slate, but then I have to have some basis for making a decision, so I default to the stock issues.

Speed or clarity?

I don't really have a preference as long as I can understand what you are reading. Just focus on your argument and getting through as many cards as you need for your case. I will be giving speaker point based on how you present the text and your familiarity with the text (read confidently and show that you know what you're reading). 

Open or closed debate?

Open unless DUDA tells me otherwise. My only condition is that the partner does not completely overpower and take over the cross examination time. 

In my decision, I will be deciding based on the arguments. Make sure that what you are reading answers your opponent's points while also bringing in new evidence or additional support for your argument. Make sure there is clash.

I enjoy debates that are cordial and professional. I know that you read evidence and cards for your debates, but I like logical connections between arguments and logical arguments in debate. I prefer a slower, clearer reading style compared to reading fast and cramming evidence and arguments into a speech. All in all, I hope that this is a great debate that everyone learns from and enjoys!

I've been a DUDA debater since 7th grade, and I've been judging debates since 9th grade. I'm well-immersed in this year's topic and I'm ready to give helpful feedback to any debaters who'd like it!

I decide who won based on which team presented a stronger argument in a convincing way.