Clements 22'

NYU 26'

Hi everyone my name is Aizaz! I competed in congres as well as foreign and domestic extempt for four years. I currently compete actively in college level parlimentary debate. I won't list my record in depth, but I did pretty well in high school so i consider myself experinced, especially in congress and extempt.

A few things to keep in mind:

if you want me on the chain: aizazbokhari549@gmail.com

any form of bigotry against your opponent or anyone else in and outside the round will result in an automatic L25 in PF, and for congress you will be ranked last.

PF:

Fairly simple, framing should be here, send the case with cards attached beforehand. I am pretty comfortable with speed, I will say clear up to twice if something is not clear, after that I will not flow in a way conducive to your team's sucsess. Anything not responded to is considered conceded and I appreaciate weighing throughout the round, but esepcially nuanced in summary. Your flow for final focus should mirror that of summary.

extra info: I am not super familiar with progressive argumentation in PF, though I will try to evaluate it as fairly as possible. Cross is binding if brought up in speech. Please show respect and kindness to everyone, especially newer novices. Nothing in debate requires you to be rude or demeaning.

Congres:

General:

I have extensive experince in congress. I am a flow judge, clear links, weighing, and proper general argumentation will always be more important to me than rhetoric. Having said that, rhetoric when done well and convincingly is an additon to your argument and will help you but it cannot make up for poor argumentation.

Questoning:

Please be respectul during questoning, heated back and forths will reflect poorly for both debaters. Good questoning results in info being acquired, it is not meant to make arguments.

First speeches and crystals:

For first speeches, my main critiera is if your argument frames the rest of the round and sets the contours of debate for the chamber than you have given a very good speech to me.

Crystals are high risk high reward. If you effectively wrap up the round, and cross-apply arguments where they can be applied and thus make clear for me my own ballot I will rank you highly. But if your crystal is just a stylised form of rehash then I struggle to see your additon to the round. So high risk high reward.

PO's

As long as the room is run smoothly with minimum errors(1-3) then you will be ranked fairly. A good PO is in the backround at best, so please keep semantics to a minimum. if you are experinced and no one else wants to or can PO, I appreciate you taking one for the chamber and that will reflect on the ballot.

Clash:

I very much value clash in round, and clash does not mean for me rehashing other peoples arguments. Clash, unless it is a crystal, should be new in the way it engages in the round. If your arguments are brought up or are the focus of clash that means you have engaged in the debate in a very convincing way and it will reflect well on my ballot. That said, while I like creative arguments if your points are so niche they disconnect from the round and I struggle to place you in the round it will not be to your advantage.

Small things:

I value quality over quantity, if I see you tried to speak but for some reasson could not and as such you got one or two less speeches than others I will not hold it against you. I value high quality speech to many speeches. Do not use someone's tragedy for bad rheotric, or make jokes that are not beffiting the seriousness of what is being discussed.

Fairness:

If you and some other group of people have rigged the docket/ actively try and keep someone from getting a speech you will be dropped. If you as the PO clearly rig the round, you wil be dropped. Their is no room on my ballot for this, any form of clear unfairness results in you being dropped.

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 and extend and show the impacts of your own.

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.

I competed in PF for three years in high school, worked at two debate camps the summer before college, and worked as a judge/assistant coach for a nationally competitive program for about a year and a half. I also competed in Extemp and Congress in high school and have some limited experience coaching both.

I'm likely very similar to national circuit judges you've encountered before (though I understand PF has changed a bit since I was last a judge in 2017). I have specifics below, but you should definitely ask if you have any other questions. Unless the tournament tells me not to, I'll always disclose and give feedback after round.

• I'll listen to anything including arguments not typically seen in PF (e.g. theory though I know it's becoming much more common).
• I like it when the second speaking team's rebuttal returns to cover their case but will not consider the case dropped in the absence of going back.
• Especially in the scenario that a second speaking team did not go back during rebuttal, I don't think the first speaking team has the burden to extend defensive arguments during their summary. This is a bit murkier if the second speaking team did go back (because really, if they sufficiently addressed the rebuttal, your partner has nothing to go off of since they can't bring up new arguments in final focus) so use your discretion and try not to avoid clash.
• With that said, I'm very conscious to ignore new arguments in the final focus.
• I can handle speed - probably up to novice/intermediate policy debater level but I'll let you know if you're going too fast.
• Paraphrasing is fine with me and was standard practice when I was debating but I understand other judges have qualms about it. Similarly, pre-round disclosure was not the norm and now I see there is significant advocacy to push for it in PF. I don't care to get into why one side is right or wrong on these issues since I no longer really have a preference. If you really feel like the norms make a difference for the activity, by all means, run theory and I'll listen to it. That said, it would be prudent to adapt to other judges on these issues if I'm sitting on a panel.
• Being polite goes a long way with me for speaker points in prelims. Though I try not to be biased, a cordial team will also have a slight advantage in nabbing my ballot.

Lastly, I'm not affiliated with any school or program that will likely attend a tournament I'm judging at (WI and MN schools only). Feel free to ask for detailed feedback, suggestions, etc. after round. I'm happy to share my thoughts on how you can improve or arguments I think are persuasive on the topic.

UC Lab 16

Michigan 20

1. Debaters have a debilitating tendency to fail to see the forest for the trees. Most debates can be resolved by 1 central issue, define that issue and tell me why you are winning on that question.

2. I am tabula rasa- I have a read a drilling aff, a Moby Dick aff, an Asian Identity aff, an encryption aff, went for Baudrillard ALOT, etc. In other words, do what you want!

3. The best way to win a K in front of me is to spend a lot ton of time on the link debate and give each link an impact and/or turns case args. Pull lines from the 1AC, go into their internal links or the structuring logic of the aff- don't just read your generic heg links to the K blocks.

4. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reason you think I should vote for you.

5. Nuance is always strategic and appreciated.

6. Im not the best for techy T and theory debates but I can most def handle it.

7. CrossX is a speech and it is super important.

8. After some personal experiences I have come to believe that death good arguments pose a serious real life threat to the mental health of high school debaters. If you read these arguments and the other team makes the argument that death good is detrimental to the community, I am very likely to vote on the argument. However, that does not mean that you shouldn't read arguments like fear of death bad in front of me.

Respect, integrity, confidence - Tirado

Former Policy Debater from the UDL circuit and NFL (Nation Forensic League).

Debated for the University of Louisville (2005-2010).