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.

Written by the school's head coach:

Suza is a brand new judge who only learned about debate yesterday and attended the training session this morning, so don't use over-technical language and don't speak too quickly. Avoid esoteric arguments.

Hello Debate Scholars,

I love to see well developed and researched contentions. The more concise and endepth evidence the better. I enjoy when scholars are aware and show compassion for communities and for topics that focus on tough social and political issues. It is important for debaters to have a solid understanding of the various stories, narratives and experiences of the stakeholders involved within each issue. I appreciate culturally relevant stances that embrace and tackle deep rooted issues surrounding race, racism, discrimination, identity and equity. I most enjoy when debate scholars try their very best to present clear, concise and solution based speeches that uphold the dignity and respect for every person involved in their speech. I have been coaching middle school and high school debate for 7 years. My teams have won League, State and National Championships. It is with great honor that I am fortunate to see debate scholars who debate with love, respect and a great spirit of competitiveness for their craft.

Sincerely,

Chiara D. Fuller

I have been a coach for over 10 years, but my team is student-led and you can consider me lay. (This was written by my students to prevent judge screws-you can thank them later.) I appreciate a more personal form of debate when it comes to judging.

Lots of eye contact with the judge (even during crossfire) and always address me as “judge” and your opponents as “my opponent (s)“ during speeches. Stand for all speeches and crosses, except grand. I will be highly inclined to vote for the other side if you do not address your opponents contentions. Be sure to extend, show impacts, and weigh. Explain concisely why I should vote for you and not your opponent.

Do not waste time looking for your cards. Have your cards ready and make sure that the evidence being cited is easy for your opponents to find.

During interactions with your opponents, I will dock your speaks and drop you if you act like a bully. Please, have an appropriate amount of physical desk space between you and your opponent.

When speaking, I appreciate a clear emphasis on what is important. I’ll be timing you, but please keep time for yourself.

About Me:

I was a Kritik + Philosophy debater who rarely defended the topic. I never TOC'd (didn't try that hard beyond sophomore year) but I did learn a lot and had a ton of fun!

I attended VBI/NSD in 2020 and the UMich K Lab in 2021.

benjaminpatrickpersonal@gmail.com

NatCir LD/CX:

1 - k/k aff/performance and philosophy/framework

2 - tricky stuff (paradoxes, floating piks, what have you)

4 - policy/larp

5 - theory/t (but see below)

Traditional LD:

Overuse of rhetoric does not compensate for losing the actual arguments in the debate. That's not to say 'tech over truth' but it is to say that you should engage, not grandstand! There are definitely judges where that works (most judges) but I certainly prefer the line-by-line.

PF:

1 - normal, traditional public forum arguments

5/strike - anything else.

three more details:

1.] On theory/topicality and disclosure: There are three scenarios: A.) If you are the clearly more resourced/skilled debater in the round, you should not read these things and should opensource 30 minutes pre-round + seek your opponent's contact information and send them your case, including when it is brand new. B.) If you are equally resourced/skilled just avoid these arguments. C.) If you are clearly under-resourced/skilled, I will not penalize nondisclosure to or misdisclosure against an over-resourced/skilled debater and feel free to read theory/topicality/disclosure.

2.] If you're a circuit debater somehow paired against a traditional debater, you will employ !!!only traditional tactics!!! with traditional speed or you will lose.

3.] Debate is not a game -- I get what you mean when you say it, but it reeks of privilege and for some people it is far more than that, meaning it can be how they get into/afford college, can make extra cash judging and coaching after, etc.

1. Please introduce yourselves, your team, who's going 1st/2nd.

2. I prefer clarity over speed.

3. Please be respectful to each other.

4. No grand cross every time

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.