Info general:

Sofía María Bosch

Mexicana-catalana-española-estadounidense

Coach (entrenadora) de debate bilingüe o en español en John D. Wells, MS. 50 (PF y política)

Jueza de PF bilingüe

Profesora de humanidades de educación especial bilingüe, grados 6-8

Expectativas:

Tus discursos deben tener un fuerte inicio y final, debe ser muy claro tu argumento relacionada con la resolución o tema del debate. Tu evidencia o los nombres de tus fuentes también deben ser explícitas.

Prefiero discursos con narrativas convincentes (pathos, logos) y palabras de transición (por ejemplo, "nuestro primer argumento", "nuestro segundo argumento", etc.).

No debería tener que decirles que sean respetuosos o que no usen lenguaje odioso, racista, capacitista, sexista u homofóbico. Si lo escucho, automáticamente le daré la boleta al otro equipo.

General Info:

Call me Vega!

SHE/THEY

Proud Boriqua Educator and Artist

Middle-School Debate Coach at John D. Wells, MS. 50

Full time Paraprofessional in Brooklyn, NYC

Debate Career:

ACORN Community High School 2012-16: Policy Debate

Coached Leon M. Goldstien from 2016-17

Judging Policy and Public Forum from 2015- Present

Judging LD from 2018- Present

Judging Congressional and Speech from 2019- Present

For the majority of my debate career I was double 2s, and later became 2N, 1A.

Overall Rules and Expectations:

I do not count sharing evidence as prep unless you take a century.

I believe that judges are NOT supposed to intervene in round under any circumstances, unless in the case of an extreme emergency.

I shouldn't have to tell you be respectful or to not use hateful, racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic language. If I hear it, I will automatically give the ballot to the other team. ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED.

Some may think petty debaters or debaters with attitudes are amusing or cute, I don't. Treat your competitors with respect or it will affect your speaker points.

Judge Philosophy:

I believe that it is my responsibility as the judge of the round to remove any pre-existing notions or biases from my mind on whatever topic you chose to debate over, and act as an objective observer who decides whether or not the AFF is a good idea. Unless told otherwise in the round, this is the perspective I default to.

Minimal expectations are the following: If the NEG does not provide any DAs to voting AFF then I will vote AFF. If the AFF does not prove that the AFF is better than the status quo and has an actual solvency method, then I will vote NEG.

It is in your best interest (speaker points) to go far beyond these basic debate expectations. I'm generous with speaker points if you keep me engaged and make sure I understand you, they usually range from 27-29.5

I don't have any specific preference when it comes to argumentation and I will vote on virtually anything you want me to if explained well, but DO NOT assume I know anything.