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.

Dear Debaters,

Here is what I expect from you:

• Please speak clearly and not at high speed so that your points are understood
• Please use limited jargon
• Think through the flow and build of your arguments and ensure that you are clear on the main points you are making
• Don't just cite evidence for evidence sake, leverage it to persuade me to with explanations, citations without explanations are not persuasive
• Be respectful - of time, of your partner and opponents. Consider your tone, conduct and words.

I have done five years of debate. Two in Parliamentary and three in Public forum. When it comes to deciding on ballots, weighing cases is probably the most effective way to get your arguments across. Impacts are in a close second when it comes to deciding outcomes. However, this does not mean I will discourage moral arguments, in fact, I highly recommend running them, so long as you can still link them to substantial evidence that proves your point.

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.