3 years HS policy experience; 4 years college parliamentary experience.

I am looking for engagement between the debaters with a focus on the quality of each teams argument.

I care about how the participants choose to shape the debate and articulate how I should vote. I look for interesting arguments and how debaters respond to and weigh arguments in the round.

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.

Hi everyone! My name is Heba, I'm a current junior in high school residing in Dubai. I've participated as a debater myself at competitions such as the world scholar's cup, but I wouldn't call myself the queen of debating! Besides debating, I enjoy judging round as well. Over the past few years, I've judged quite a few debates at school and online during covid. In case of any queries, please don't hesitate to ask me:) I hope we have a wonderful time together!

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain. zhaneclloyd@gmail.com

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - 2021 (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)

***I used to keep my video off for rounds, but I've since learned that it's a mistake for the morale of the debater as well as for confirming whether or not I'm actually in the room. If my camera is off, I am not in the room. Please do not start speaking***

I currently work a full-time job that has nothing to do with debate. I still judge because that full-time job does not pay enough (does any job nowadays?) and I've built community with people that are still very active in debate, so seeing them is nice. It is also means I'm VERY out of touch with what the new norms in debate are. But everything below still applies for the most part.

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too. NEG - LINKS to those impacts matter. AFF - how you SOLVE those impacts matter. Outside of that context, I'm not sure how I should evaluate.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. If at the end of the round, you find yourself wanting to ask my opinion on an argument that you thought was a round winner, know that I have one of two answers: I didn't consider it or I didn't hear it. Usually, it's the latter. So try not to make 5 arguments in 20 seconds.

7. There's no such thing as a "good" time to run 5+ off, but I'll especially be annoyed if it's the first or last round of the day. 10+ off guarantees I will not flow and may even stop the round. I'm not the judge for those type of rounds.

8. I've grown increasingly annoyed with non-Black debaters making "helping Black people" as part of their solvency. A lot of you don't know how to do this without either a). sounding patronizing as hell or b). forgetting that "helping Black people" was part of your solvency by the time rebuttals come around (#BackburnerDA). I'm not going to tell you to stop running those arguments, but I strongly recommend you don't have me in the back of the room for them.

**ONLINE DEBATE**: You don't need to yell into your mic. I can hear you fine. In fact, yelling into your mic might make it harder for me to hear you. Which means you may lose. Which is bad. For you.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts and the government's ability to solve them or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary and it makes the perm easier.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I've designed games from time to time, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. Though I do understand that my definition of "relevant" and a K debater's definition of "relevant" may differ greatly slightly, so just prove to me why the aff is a good idea and why the lack of government action is not as relevant/bad/important as the negative's framework makes it seem.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, and Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still **like** it. Please just call it framework in front of me. I've heard various names be used to describe it, but they're all just arguments about what should be discussed in the round and how the aff fails to do so.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

I debated PF in High School, coached in College and now work and run tournaments for the NYCUDL. I judge on the flow most heavily on the last four speeches. Please weigh and give analysis beyond dropping weighing mechanism terms. The more effective your analysis and explanation of the round the more likely I will vote for you. I won't drop your arguments if you don't bring them up in every speech, but I will weigh and value them less because that indicates to me that it is not an essential argument to your case. Be kind to your opponents I will dock your speaks for being rude to anyone in the round.

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.

add me to the chain: alyssa.santiago@lmghs.org

i like k's :) run anything you're good at though! i'm cool with policy-based debate too if cp's and da's are your thing.

If you want to play rock, paper, scissors with me before a round, I will not back down to such a challenge. (If you lose I won't doc speaks)

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.

Experience: Debated World Schools in Eastern and Central Europe for 6 years, and coached/judged for 4 years. This is my first time judging PF in New York, so I'm really excited to take part in this tournament!

Background:

Clashing and weighing are the things I watch out for most during rounds. It is important to me that you are actively engaging with your opponents' arguments and proving why your case matters more, has a larger impact, is more relevant, etc.

I also pay attention to the way in which you extend your arguments and ensure that they remain present or are expanded upon throughout the course of the round.

Signposting and the provision of a framework for the debate are always very helpful in keeping track of the issues being discussed.