Bales,+Jordana

I have been teaching and administrating at Bronx Science for a long time. I have been around the debate community for over a decade, I have not judged many rounds which means that I am still learning some of my preferences for arguments that I like and dislike.

In general I can say that, I'm a traditional judge. I want to see a slow debate about the resolution. However, I am not entirely traditional. For example, I want to see the resolution affirmed or negated but do not need the case to be in the traditional value/value criterion structure.

If you want more specifics please ask me before the debate and I'll try to give my best answer.


 * Policy Debate Overview--Judging for Bronx Science at the 2017 Ridge Debates **

I am new to judging policy but have experience judging other forms of debate. Make every argument clear and tell me why it is **important ** **!** Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.


 * Argument-Specific ** (I prefer policy oriented traditional arguments)

//**Critical affs-**// very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

// **Neg arguments: ** // //Disad//- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing. //Counterplan//- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff //Topicality//- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important //Kritik//- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.