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.

I graduated from Montville Township High School in 2018 and from Wesleyan University in 2022. I did PF for 4 years and I now work for the New York City Urban Debate League.

I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy. I probably won't flow from a speech doc. I'm fine with game-like things like kicking case and going for turns. I'm okay with some level of tech/progressive argumentation, but I don't want that to be a game-like thing--I probably won't vote for a shell/K that I think is read solely because the other team doesn't know how to handle it.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.

First summary does not need to cover defense unless second rebuttal frontlined. First summary should include turns if you want them as offense, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense (unless they were frontlined in second rebuttal).

I really, really appreciate collapsing in both summaries. And, of course, weighing.

I am a lay judge.

Please do not speak very quickly, and I do not appreciate yelling.

Truth over tech, if you want to implement something technical, explain it in lay terms. I prefer not to try to understand technical jargon, please just explain the concept without it (or make sure to define the term).

Clearly state the number and tagline of your contention clearly to help my flow.

I prefer shorter speeches to over-repetition of a point without adding additional information (i.e. just to fill time).

Make sure your framework matches your contentions.

Please give (and follow) an off time roadmap (again, to help my flow).

Hello Everyone! My name is Madison.

I love judging debate tournaments!

I was a policy debater for three years and a PF debater for one. Most recently, I was a Policy debater, so I have a better grasp of the schematics of a Policy debate. I was a debater under Success Academy for all four years.

I do have experience judging Parli and PF.

As a judge, I'm big on respect for your partner and opponents, so please try to remain respectful during the debate rounds.

My preferences are as follows:

1. Policy: I believe plans are very important, and remember not to drop anything. I love Ks, Topicalities, and counter plans as long as they're run properly. Spreading is okay if you're clear and speak loud enough for me to hear.
2. PF: Make sure that you're clearly stating your plan, and I enjoy it when debaters paint a picture at the end for weighing the impacts presented in the round
3. Parli: Heckling is okay but not excessive. Make sure you remain confident while debating, which will be reflected in your Speaker Points.

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!

for pf, add me to the email chain c25ad@dalton.org

to keep it simple:

signpost, warrant, and weigh.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask before the round

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

I do want to be on the email chains: viveth [at] debate.nyc

I'm the lead program director at the NYC Urban Debate League. I've coached policy debate at Harvard University and Emory University. I did policy debate at Emory University and at Chattahoochee High School.

I evaluate the debate entirely based on the arguments in the round and the flow.

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

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.

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

For Lex '24: First-time policy judge. I have never watched policy rounds so please speak slowly and clearly and you can treat me as a lay/parent judge. I am a senior and a lay public forum debater for Bronx Science.

TELL ME IN UR SECOND REBUTTAL WHERE TO VOTE AND WHY. BE CONVINCING.

email: mansfieln@bxscience.edu

Add me to the email chain: c25am1@dalton.org

HS PF debater (5 yrs)

• speed is fine mostly
• weigh
• tech>truth mostly
• theory is ok
• Ks are meh (see below)
• i don't rly flow cross say it in a speech

General:

• email for additional feedback
• both oral and verbal RFDs
• i stop flowing 5 seconds over (30s for parli)
• i can handle faster speeds but speech docs are always welcome and required for 250+ WPM
• debate is meant to be fun - anything offensive means i drop u immediately
• be mindful of ur opponents debate abilities and don't be abusive
• don't shout at me its not that deep
• i will have submitted my ballot before revealing the decision, fighting it doesn't affect it even if you are right
• i like creative arguments
• im petty so if u do something bad in the round idc about the flow
• i like fun arguments

PF:

Weigh: spend time weighing in summary/ff and in rebuttal too. implicate everything. don’t just list specific mechanisms explain why u win on them. metaweighing is cool. dropping the words 'nuke war' or 'extinction' don't make u autowin. if there is a clear path to it ill consider it and nuke war impacts are kinda fun.

Speeches: just because u send me a speech doc doesn't mean it substitutes for ur speech. if i can't hear u say something it doesn't count.

Tech>Truth mostly: as long as the argument is reasonable I’ll evaluate it. if u say something that is evidently false without having knowledge of the topic I’ll be less likely to believe it but if it comes down to it then I will evaluate something slightly unbelievable.

Extension: defense is not sticky. say it in every speech if u want it in my rfd. please please extend in summary and final i hate voting for your opponents bc you forgot to extend.

Cards: i prefer cut cards but paraphrasing is ok unless ur opponents run a good shell. share evidence but don't call for too many cards - the point of debate is ur voice. if ur opponents call out your evidence i will read them (tell me specific cards from the chain). i don't like mischaracterized evidence. if it is really bad evidence i will note that. i won't read it unless im asked. don't just say their evidence is bad say why.

Theory: i prefer substance unless there’s a really bad violation - PLEASE make sure your opponents and all judges are fine with this. If they say something like "we don't know how to respond" or "we've never debated theory before" and its indicated early enough in the round drop the shell. otherwise I will drop you. im not a big fan of disclosure theory unless u can prove they prepped u out and are taking advantage. don't run it against small schools which barely use the wiki. treat me like a flay/lay for this.

RVIs: i need more than "we aren't guilty so we win."

Ks: explain these to me like im a lay judge.

Responses: quality over quantity but i will be impressed if you can say a decent number. its not terminal defense unless you explain why. saying the word 'turn' doesn't make it a turn unless it really is.

Cross: be nice. but if your opponents are experienced enough some sarcasm is fine as long as it doesnt become u being mean. i appreciate a bit of humor (this definitely applies to ur speeches and humor boosts ur speaks)

Timing: i will. don't have a loud timer. i will not flow ur speech if ur more than 5 seconds over, there is no benefit.

Pet Peeves:

• wasting time or prepping while u aren't supposed to
• looking atme instead of your opponents in cross
• saying your evidence has to be true just because a random blogger said so
• repeating the same point again and again if its already been responded to
• interrupting your opponents too much in cross
• don't use advanced jargon against novices
• don't speak to your partner during their speeches/cross
• garbling your words and speeches instead of just pausing
• misrepresenting ur evidence when its obvious

Parli:

Arguments: Warrants should be understandable and based on knowledge someone who reads something like the New York Times would have

Weigh: please.

Definitions: Stick to the motion - if you run an abusive definition your opponents don’t need to say much for me to disregard it - abusive definitions just have to be something that no reasonable opp team could plan for

Framework: Stick to general stuff most of the time

Plan/CP: Counterplans are fine as long as they are actually counterplans - supporting the motion but just changing the time frame or taking out one part of the gov plan is NOT a con case. Gov plans should also be reasonable (raising the minimum wage by 1 cent is not a real plan on a raising the minimum wage topic)

- Call out your opponents if their plan/counterplan is abusive

Rebuttal: Quality > Quantity - 9 responses that aren’t implicated is less valuable on my flow than one or two that are thoroughly explained. but if you can actually explain them all go for it.

POIs: verbal. to 15 seconds or less - I would recommend taking 1 but its up to you.

Points of Order: use them well - new responses that are ‘probability weighing’ will be dropped from my flow without them saying anything. its hard for me to evaluate anything even if its not called out. don't just use one to interrupt your opponents rhythm i will remember that.

Hey everyone! I'm Zach, and I'm excited to be judging your round!

I'd like to be added to any email chains, my email is zachary.meryn@gmail.com (creative i know)

LD:
Tech>Truth

LARP-1
K-1, I'm familiar with most Ks but for the more high level ones just make sure you do a good job explaining Theory of Power, links, impacts, etc.

Theory-2, I'm down to vote off a theory shell but I have a very low tolerance for friv theory, if you're planning on running more than 2 shells in a given round I'd be careful.

Tricks-4, please don't run tricks I will very rarely vote on them even if they go unanswered.

Phil-2 I love phil in rounds, same with Ks make sure to give in depth explanations so I can follow but the more creative the better and generally I think they make rounds super fun.

Spreadings ok as long as I get a speech doc.

flex prep is alright with me just ask your opponent

dont post round me

PF:
Speed-should be conversational & easy to understand

I'm really big on seeing analytical arguments used to refute opposing points rather than just throwing statistics at each other-I usually vote for the team that can explain WHY they're winning.

Make sure to weigh

Be polite in crossfire

Also if anyone shows me photos of their cat before the round ill give +.1 speaks I love cats.

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.

Please speak slowly and clearly, everything you have to say is valuable. Always be polite. Carry yourself like a great competitor and a positive person!