SADL PF 3
2023 — Manhattan, NY/US
Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideLD Paradigm- I compete in nfald currently so I like to encourage kids to have fun and do what you like in round all that I ask is that you're nice and please extend~~~
PF Paradigm- I currently coach Public Forum at the middle school level, and I'm the most familiar with this event because I competed in it the longest in High school and have consistently been in public forum judge pools since 2017. I don't really care what you go for in round especially at the varsity level, I just don't want progressive arguments being ran strategically so that your opponent doesn't understand what you're doing and making the debate a wash especially whenever they're done poorly, so please be willing to be flexible and make rounds as simple or complicated as they need to be. That being said I try and keep my voting reserved to whatever the is established in the round regardless of my own opinions. Don't make me do any work in terms of judging the competitors should be telling me how I need to vote.
Congress paradigm- I want chambers to be run by the debators as much as possible I don't care about much as long as you dont go over alotted time I'm very flexible on augmenting nit picky things for the sake of convenience just dont spend 20 minutes going over things. Typically I recommend just defaulting to the rules but settling things quickly via majority vote is also okay as long as the ruling is fair.
I coach policy and public forum debate as well as most speech events in American and Chinese circuits. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level but I enjoy higher level debates, too. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing and just as many in speech. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.
danabellcontact@gmail.com for the chain.
My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.
Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.
1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.
2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.
3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.
4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!
5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.
6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.
10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.
11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.
12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.
13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)
14. Have fun XD
"Coach DB"
Abram de Bruyn -abram.debruyn@saschools.org He/him/his
BA, Performance Studies | Victoria University, Australia
MA, Philosophy and Education | Teachers College, Columbia University
Coaching Experience: Public Forum, Congress, Ethics Bowl, Parliamentary. Judged Policy, never coached or competed.
My approach to judging debate is to recognize each format as a distinct game variant and to honor the rules for scoring. I do not award my decision to the smartest or most knowledgeable person(s) in the room but the team with the winning argument(s). Sportsmanship counts for something, and in close decisions can be decisive. I enjoy and appreciate creative and philosophical arguments which shed new light or perspectives on a topic. However, these can also be a distraction for me if the claims being made are less than clear (or the possibilities for mis-interpretation too juicy). I will want to engage with the ideas instead of weighing the arguments. Always remember, contests can be won or lost by how clearly impacts are communicated in conclusion. Tell me how to vote and why, this is your ultimate challenge.
I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years in Science park high school. I recently graduated and I am now on the Rutgers Newark debate team. I've qualified to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate my senior Year.
I give high speaks if you are clear and really good in the big picture debate. I like a good story.
Hi! I'm Amber and if you're reading this I'm probably judging you. Here's some background information:
Kean University: B.A Communication Studies, Minor in Marketing (2023)
Success Academy Debate teacher
Participated in various competitive speech and debate clubs in college and grew a profound love for teaching and coaching public speaking.
I will judge you based on the following criteria:
- I like animated and audible voices ( as it allows the audience to hear their argument and passion about the debate topic)
- I will not tolerate any forms of disrespect or racism when deliberating.
- I prefer for the debater to have clear and precise cutting done well in advance. ( This way they are fully prepared and can be judged fairly)
- Lastly, I will always judge fairly solely based on the case evidence produced.
Hi! If you’re reading this, it’s probably because I’m judging you. Here’s some information on my background:
Email: georgina.kenchington@SASchools.org
Georgetown University: B.S. International Politics, Concentration in Security Studies (2014-2018)
Public Forum Debate Coach @ Success Academy Harlem North Central (8/23-Present)
I started competing in Model United Nations (MUN) at the Marymount School of New York until I graduated in 2014. I continued to compete extensively and judge (chair) committees through my time at Georgetown University until I graduated until 2018. I served as Conferences Coordinator for Georgetown’s collegiate travel team my senior year, and also served on conference secretariats throughout my time at university, helping to organize and coordinate high school and collegiate level conferences. This is my first year judging public forum debate tournaments, and I’m excited to get started!
I have strong background in and knowledge of current events and international affairs/policies from my previous Model UN experience and collegiate area of study. I will note that my previous experience of theory/philosophy is limited.
Here’s the criteria I will use to adjudicate your round:
- Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.
- A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect and arguments that go against basic human rights and dignity.
- I will increase speaker points for clarity, confidence, articulation, and poise - show me that you know what you’re talking about and say it with conviction.
- I’m looking for a clear definition of the central issue, and understanding the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.
- Make sure you engage with the resolution at hand — connect cases back to the topic clearly, and don’t waste time debating definitions of the words in the resolution.
- Organization matters to me, and I appreciate a strong framework for your arguments. I will add speaker points for clear roadmapping.
- I’m looking for a strongly orated round from the winner, keeping your speed at a medium.
- I’m looking for analytics and the more educational team.
Good luck and I hope you enjoy this debate!
I want to be on the email chain.
Email: humairakh01@gmail.com
A few things before I dive into specifics:
You can sit or stand. I don't care or have a preference, whatever is most convenient for you.
1. If you are offended by anything said in a debate, tell me! Also, please be friendly and considerate.
2. If you spread and I cannot understand you, it will be very difficult for me to flow, and therefore very difficult for you to win. Coherency > speed. Additionally, I value expressive speaking a lot, because it adds quality to a debate. If you are expressive and passionate, you'll get more speaker points from me. I will say clear if I can't understand you.
2. If you're cutting cards, make sure to tell me. Please don't skip around.
3. Signposting is an amazing skill. Please use that skill.
A large part of debate is being able to take your cards and turn them into a story. If you can explain your story to me, and why you should win, using not only your cards, but also analytics, logic, etc., you can win me over. You shouldn't be spreading your way through your explanations.
Framework is really important to me. You must be able to explain to me how I should evaluate the round. I heavily consider impact calc as well, and it is often times the main voting factor for me.
I love K debates, but you must be able to give me thorough explanations and not just read out generic cards.
I love CP/DA debates, but you must be able to explain how your plan o/w that of the aff. You can even say "Our plan o/w the aff in xyz ways". The more blunt and clear you are, the better.
I like T debates, but I find that it's very easy to get confused if you're not clear and concise while doing T debates.
In terms of theory: I don't like theory debates.
Other than that, just remember to have fun, and don't be afraid to reach out and ask questions via my email.
For Interp ppl:
Be expressive and concise, and you'll get a higher rank from me.
I'm the Lead Chess teacher based out of SA Harlem North Central and SA Hamilton Heights. I have a background in physics (quantum mechanics/dynamics) and philosophy (metaphysics).
As a lay judge, no spreading, theory, K's or performance. Keep it logical and, most importantly, topical.
I am very truth over tech and will not vote blindly on things like Nuke War impacts unless properly explained and extended.
General
Howdy! I’m a former competitor (middle/high school) and former head coach from AZ. I have experience competing/judging/coaching almost all speech and debate events except for policy.
I consider over-generalizing arguments to be harmful to the debate space. Running arguments along the lines of "X people are not suffering" or "no one has this problem anymore" will hurt your results. Use your clearest judgement when using absolute statements. Your perspective and evidence can only be stretched to an extent. For many conversations in s&d, we have the privilege of discussing topics we will never face; speak with that privilege in check.
Lastly, be kind and have fun! You've got this. Good luck! Feel free to ask me questions - we're all here to learn and grow!
Email: literallylittler@gmail.com
Congress
Impacts and weighing are crucial.
Engage and build. Engage with the round and build upon previous speeches by adding new information. Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.
If the debate starts to repeat the same arguments, please move to question.
Happy to consider the PO in my ranking. PO must show a good knowledge of procedures and run a smooth chamber.
Lincoln-Douglas
I prefer traditional LD and am not a big fan of progressive LD. If you are going to run a Kritik, LARP, etc., I need to clearly understand why it is being used. I understand progressive LD jargon somewhat and will not automatically vote you down for a use of progressive LD, but I can’t guarantee I’ll catch everything perfectly. Particularly, if its use is unclear, it will affect my decision.
I look for weighing arguments/impacts and clear structure/sign posting.
I do not flow cross ex - if you bring up an important point during CX, make sure to include it in your speeches. I will still provide feedback about CX though and it could affect your speaker points.
Moderate speed - while I am familiar with spreading, moderate speed allows me to properly flow all of your arguments.
Public Forum
I appreciate context and clarity with stats (econ is not my strongest suit). I look for weighing arguments/impacts and clear structure/sign posting.
1st speaker and 2nd speaker are equally valuable and challenging roles to take on - for 1st speakers, I typically look for an ability to synthesize the debate and create a clear narrative of why your team is winning; for 2nd speakers, I typically look for direct clash and key voters in the final focus.
I do not flow crossfire - if you bring up an important point during crossfire, make sure to include it in your speeches. I will still provide feedback about your crossfire though and it could affect your speaker points.
Moderate speed - while I am familiar with spreading, moderate speed allows me to properly flow all of your arguments.
-have clear warrants and impacts
-clear, understandable speaking style
-be engaged and persuasive
I'm Harrison Malkin, a native of New Jersey. I debated throughout my four years at Ithaca College in domestic and international competitions. My specialty is in Lincoln Douglas and British Parliamentary Style. Free speech and challenging discourse are important things. As my former professor would say: "My stance is that there is nothing that we cannot discuss, nor are there subjects that we cannot engage playfully...My challenge was to be sensitive, responsive, and accommodating without being patronizing and condescending." I think it's important to engage in respectful, organized, and educational debates without spewing hate or mockery.
I think speaking too fast in order to invoke more points is counterintuitive and negative to the debating community. I prefer debaters to be clear, articulate, and intentional with their words. I'm interested in the style, as well as the persuasiveness of debaters. And in any given debate, voting issues should be explicit. Tell me why your case is more compelling. Any argument is fair game.
In general, don't hesitate to ask me questions. I'm here to help and to offer constructive criticism.
Email: cydmarie.debate@gmail.com
Hi everyone! Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:
1. Tabula Rasa: I try my best to enter each debate round with a "clean slate." I leave my biases at the door and will judge solely based on the quality and skills of your argumentation. I consider myself a pretty chill judge.
2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing. I HIGHLY consider impact calc in my decision-making.
3. Rebuttal Speeches: Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win.
4. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.
5. I enjoy cross-examination/cross-fire periods. Take advantage of your c/x periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions.
6. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect. Please be a kind and decent human being. *Any racist, and discriminatory arguments or language will result in low speaker points and may result in the loss of the round.*
7. Impacts: I rock with the nuclear war/extinction impact, but it's getting a little old. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war/leads to extinction, please warrant it well.
8. I will never vote for a "human extinction good/death good argument."
9. Speed: Clarity>Speed. Just please project your voice and roadmap, and make sure you're clear. Speak at a reasonable pace.
10. There's a theatrical component to debate. I want everyone to have fun. Be expressive, focus on your posture, gestures, and eye contact. I will increase speaker points if I see a great demonstration of this in the round.
BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)
pulverizer1997@icloud.com to share the evidence; top-line on this issue here: I thought judges who complained about the “time it takes to flash…” was nonsense but I’ve started to see this become a problem. If you cannot make this process reduce down to a reasonable time-scale, meaning the rounds interpretation is no longer in the conception of the tournament but of myself, then your speaks will reflect this being an issue. Personally, I think this is a problem cause coaches are telling kids to no longer program the round and just freely code themselves. If this angers you before seeing my name, then the answer is easy: strike me.
My name is Michael Alexander Pulver. My kids call me Coach MAP. You do not need to give me that latter of respect but I would prefer to not be framed like the abstract object that you are using right now to read this paradigm; I am human. I currently head-coach at Success Academy where K-12 education is what I’m actively participating in with steady research in all debate formats and speech events. The two circuits that grew me into who I am today are the University Interscholastic League (UIL) and Texas Forensic Association (TFA). Those that made sure us teenagers didn’t burn down the hotels are Jordan Innerarity, Nicole Cornish, and Carver Hodgkiss at a small, 4A, school in East Texas called Athens. J.I kept me in-line. Nicole is debate mom. Carver made sure I took care of me. I got taught LD Debate and character development by Rodrigo Paramo at UTNIF. I learned CX from Matt Hernandez, True Head, Jose Sanchez, Will Harper, all of Lindale, and a litany of other characters. I did Extemporaneous Speaking and the most fundamental drill was the dart-gun.
After an okay high school experience, I found myself pursuing a bachelors of science with Integrative Studies. My experiences with Louie Petit, Brian Lain, Colin Quinn, and the greatest G.A of all-time, are some of my most formidable and ego-killing times of my life. CX-Debate was dead at the time but Parliamentary Debate was no joke. To a certain degree, I thought it was ‘funny’ to think: “wow… no cards?…” But this was a bad center to start at and I don’t totally reduce my experiences there over that concept. Rather, I think Brian and Louie had every attempt to try and get it through the thick-skull of a teenager that the world was very big and all we’re trying to do is make it extremely tiny in an already tiny scale. The lectures, the steak dinners, the overwhelming losses to TTU; you name it, I probably had too much fun but I let a lot get to my head instead of following the below.
At the start of how I paradigm myself, I do not think debate is a game but if you argue it as such then I will believe you. Let me explain, however, that I see a clear binary over the “Klein bottle” here that intersects the two agents I’ve come into contact within my own life: “Dogs” and “Cats” are real, we should treat them as such. Their experiences matter and we should take their stories with extremely serious analysis because us human beings are flawed and, often, stupid. Meeting Jason Jordan a hand-full of times in my life granted me some clarity on what it means to be a ‘sleepless’ arbiter on questions that we often describe through the flow. This does mean that I’m paying attention to every little detail that I can without subjecting biased to my own fears of the environment. As an example, maybe you’ve had the privilege of meeting a Belgian Malinois and seen them in both work and play mode. They can seem rather tense. They can be perceived as “aggressive...” But make no mistake: there’s a bit of child at the center of that beast. I defend that it’s because of us humans and our affixes to violence, if you’ve read into Alan Turing and his work with algorithms and machine-learning then this will make sense to you, we tend to negate that a tender soul sits there wanting to just fix the world. I often place that this means arbiters tend to ignore the problems because it’s a “time-sensitive… issue” instead of critiquing the temporality of our existence. Purely, this is all reflection and that’s where I think the border of the “Dog” is placed but not exclusively intrinsic to itself. As with the “Cat”, Matthew Gayetsky, and to some extent I do credit Gabe Murillo here, taught that the communication to ones-self is not mutually exclusive to the ramifications of ones own environment. Debate has created a reciprocation here since the early inceptions of the Louisville Project that has told debaters that they should look at the debate space as an environment with clear brevity and zero-secular value. My telos begins, at the conception, that debate is a space, looking for its time, to break this reciprocal and we’ve been woefully unsuccessful due to some archaic forms of logic.
And since debaters want to abstract communication to me without clearly understanding how they’re doing it, let me produce some clarity for you: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
When I was but a wee-lad, I did think it was cool and straight-edge to make a novel of a paradigm within the philosophy of off-case and theoretical positions like “DisAds”, “Condo”, “CP Theory”, “Inherency Shells…?”, etc. but in my journey of this activity, I’ve learned we’re setting up a binary that is inherently anti-pedagogical. One where “institutions…” go up against “you must 10x your flows and then you get my ballot..”er’s and that has made me sad but hopeful. The nature of the agents is one I won’t deduce here but I will give you a simple answer: I do not think either notion is important, or healthy, for this activity. Brenden Dimmig helped me understand this in terms of where I center the symbolics and how I’ve experienced debaters really missing the mark on the conversations around topics. I tend to deduce here that since 16mm prints have been replaced by internet-apps that the experience has been dulled and boring for many, including myself. Jimi Morales showed me this through how these expressions overlap into other mediums of art. As such, many of these arts have reciprocated into debate and I have seen them done well and experienced versions of it before my time. Cyd-Marie Minier Ciriaco and Fredrich Hegel, hilariously, have revealed this conundrum to me through the dialectical machine that is the “incompleteness” of reality; to me, this means being “tab” is very impossible and I think it behooves you to understand that I am here to educate you on the decisions you make to deduce to me the nature of “what is reality…?” And so forth. I won’t grandstand on this point but rather be straightforward: you should strike me if you think that neutral-arbitration is, somehow, in lieu of lived experiences and previous coaching.
To summarize everything, or try to, I must default that my ontological threshold is held within the ‘eye of the beholder’ and well beyond my own purview of reason. I’ve worked with many highly-skilled people with profound gifts for entertaining the world around them. What I’ve learned in those experiences, despite having a background where I felt absolutely tiny in the comparison of these great achievements, is I always have much to learn and, rather radically, have things to teach. This does not mean the dichotomy can’t be ruptured. This does not mean I’m set in my ways. I defend, rather, that I am reflecting the lives of many lived experiences that I simply can’t deduce down to some binary that isn’t all but semantics and nonsense to the average reader. I’ve learned to accept that and I harp in teaching you that I can’t write the round for you unless you design it that way. By that nature, I’ve been called ‘sassy’ at times because I tend to not get involved and think “judge reasonability…” is a quantifiable myth protected by institutions within their own form of wake. I think debaters have lost the art of asking questions. Not just to each other but to their judges. The history of this activity spans well before your birth and I hope it will span well after the heat-death of our universe. In that bleak sense, I tend to think the coach who wrote your blocks the night before is doing a disservice to your character and will absolutely bring you failure at some point in your life. Maybe you can trick me but I’ve watched alot of Kitchen Nightmares, Ghost Adventures, and Three-Stooges shorts to say: the medium changes, but not the story. It’s, therefore, up to all of us to start taking these “jokes” ‘seriously’.
To Mom, Dad, the 40+ cats and counting, countless dog cases, and Lady; you inspire me. You keep me going. And like all of you, I see an activity that is more about what we are in life than those that seek to make us party instead of live. We'll see a life beyond it.
TLDR; If you flow well, you understand your prep, and have a fullness to your character-design, you will pick up my ballot.
================================================================================================
FOR Virtual Debates: I find the computer medium does not allow for spreading to be coherent and I won't use the dock as an excuse for that BUT I'm comfortable with all forms of argumentation and I encourage creativity.
Hello! I'm Bibi, and I recently graduate from the University of Pennsylvania in biology. I love running, art, and debate!
I'm currently a debate teacher/coach at Success Academy Middle School in Ozone Park!
My email: bibi.singh@saschools.org
I've debated three years of Varsity Public Forum in high school. I was a mentor on my team and judged debate for around six years on both the high school and collegiate level in Philly!
I prefer clear well-spoken speakers that can get their content across effectively. In terms of content, I want to see the impact of your position on a much broader scale. Specifically, make sure you answer this question, why should I care?
In terms of speeches, I prefer that people stand when they speak. During cross, I prefer to keep our environment respectful, with no rudeness and no overpowering others. I prefer no oral prompting.
I accept frameworks and off-time road-maps but make sure they're relevant and don't overuse them (don't roadmap every single one of your speeches to me, it should be organized) In terms of card-reading, please don't call for cards excessively in the round. Feel free to establish an email chain beforehand if that works well for you.
In terms of judging, I look for clear and cohesive arguments as well as impactful closing statements. I based on who created the most valid points versus who was most aggressive and "hard-hitting. (overall, be passionate but please do not start yelling at your opponents. Have fun. ) I'll give extensive feedback on your specific speeches if you ask for it.
Steven Szwejkowski - steven.szwejkowski@SASchools.org
High school - Renaissance Charter School
BA, Philosophy | Queens College
Although I have not formally competed in a debate league, I did recreationally partake in stimulating discourses in the Philosophy Club at Queens College while I was a student. We had many engaging debates, in which we explored highly theoretical and practical topics, ranging from consciousness to politics. Furthermore, my focus when I was an undergraduate and as of now is twofold: socioeconomic concerns and rational frameworks. To fully understand and extend the material in these topics requires an elevated level of researching, writing, and defending your conclusions, all of which are integral in debate.
As a side not, feel free to be as theoretical as each resolution/topic allows.
The following are two criterions by which I use to assess each debater and round:
Speeches: Must display clear articulation, confidence, poise, and appropriate speed. (Do not spread!)
Cases: 1) Must have clear and relevant contentions. 2) I favor quality rebuttals and the team that does a better job at attacking the opposition's arguments to which they may respond weakly. 3) I will take into account the team who asks better (leading) questions during the cross-examination rounds. 4) Lastly, the team that contains the most uncontested statements, i.e., dropped contentions, by their opposition usually wins under my judgement.
jack.valentino@saschools.org for the chain.
I competed in LD, PF, and Extemp for Chaminade High School (NY) until I graduated in 2018. In college, I studied congressional politics and law while keeping up with current events. I'm now a coach at Success Academy Harlem East.
Medium speed is okay, but it needs to be understandable. Taglines need to be read slowly!
Avoid prewritten speeches.
I give speaker points for confidence, articulation, and poise. As such, I'm looking for a well orated and well "weighed" round from the winner, not a line-by-line or technical win.
I'm anti-intervention -- if they drop an argument completely in multiple speeches but you don't bring it up and tell my why that's important then I won't intervene and count it as offense for you. Similarly, if they tell me the sky is red and you say nothing and they extend it... the sky is red.
Engaging with the resolution at hand is CRUCIAL to me. Not receptive to Theory or K's -- engage with the resolution itself. Non-topical contentions need to be clearly articulated as to why I should vote on them. Clarifying/debating definitions of words in the resolution is part of debate, but rewriting the resolution is not.
PF specific: Open cross-examination needs to be agreed to by both teams for it to exist outside of grand cross.
Speak slowly/clearly, connect cases back to the topic ESPECIALLY CLEARLY, and feel free to be appropriately witty or humorous :) This is a public speaking activity, not a spreading activity.
Professional Experience: For over a decade, I have studied criminal justice and earned two undergraduate degrees in criminal justice, criminology, with a minor focus in dispute resolution. I earned a Master's degree in Human Rights Law from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York City. I have more than 5 years of professional experience in legal research, legal and argumentative writing, and debate in criminal courtrooms in Kings County. (i.e. arraignments, trials, and hearings). Since September, 2023, I have been a coach for middle school debaters and have been a judge in public forum and congressional debate in numerous debate tournaments including Tournaments of Champions (TOC) for public fourm and congressional debate, Harvard Invitational and NSDA Nationals
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Public Forum:It is critical that the argument structure flow smoothly and follow a framework that is clearly topical. If a team drops their argument in multiple speeches and the opposing team fails to notice, emphasize it and explain why it is important, I will not intervene and consider it an offense against you because it is critical for debaters to flow and discredit their opponent's arguments. Card dumping should be avoided. You should be able to explain your own theories with cards as evidentiary support for your theories, as opposed to having an argument that was solely cut from cards. Lastly, I will provide extensive written feedback ( detailed verbal feedback when possible).*As per NSDA rules and regulations, I will not disclose RFDs after rounds.
Technical Preferences: Keep track of your own prep time. Standing or sitting during rounds is up to the discretion of the speaker. Medium speed is acceptable, but voice projection must be good and articulation needs to be clear (avoid spreading). Conceding time may be extremely harmful for your argument. It is important for debaters to demonstrate good time management. However, if a question is asked during the CF and GCF rounds, I will allow scholars to finish their sentence should the timer interrupt. I award speakers points for confidence and sportsmanship and steer the weight of the ballot based on the argument that contained an overall cohesiveness and strongest delivery. I will add one additional speaker point if an inference from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is cited and used in your argument. Be cool, calm, and respectful throughout the rounds. However, I always appreciate humor and wit. ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Debate: In order to judge your speech and or questions acurately, it is vital you are active in the chamber as much as possible. However, please ensure you are honoring your time limit and any and all grace periods. I will vote for debaters whom discredit their opponents’ speeches, extend their stance with winning impacts and authentic relevance in the status quo. Debaters who bring the confidence, eloquence, knowledge and direct clash make engaging speeches will recieve my vote. Be sure to refrain from rehashing. A persuasive delivery is what makes congress an uniquely powerful type of debate, so try your best, get creative and most importantly have fun!
e-Mail: Prisilla.Villalobos@saschools.org
Best of luck!