I have over 15 years of experience in the field of education. I taught elementary education for 6 years, have directed several educational programs and am currently an instructor at the University level. I have judged 2 HS tournaments and 4 MS tournaments.

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

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.

Hi! My name is Wren Markman and I debated for three years in the UDL, so I have some experience in Public Forum debate. I typically flow (take notes on) rounds, but I'm not infallible so I still might miss something.

The most important aspects that I look for when judging are: clarity over speed, clear emphasis stated for the contentions, enunciation of words for clarity, and clearly stating why the side has won (Scope, Magnitude, Reversibility, Prerequisite, Time Frame, Probability, or a Priori).

Hello,

I am Nicholas Tappe, a sophomore at the George Washington University. I am a former Public Forum debater at The Bronx High School of Science, and Parliamentary debater at the Salk School of Science. As such, I have 3 years of Parliamentary experience and 3.5 years of Public Forum experience. I have also judged various Public Forum and Parliamentary tournaments both online and in person.

For All Debaters:

I expect good sportsmanship from both teams before, during, and after the round. In round I prefer if speeches are delivered in a measured pace (I will not deduct points for speeches delivered at speed, but I will not be able to give as comprehensive individual feedback), as they often promote more thoughtful speeches, which often regain the time loss of slower speaking with the elimination of repetition and filler words. I will keep time for the round. I will provide a verbal 1 minute warning, hold my hand up in a half clock/crescent shape for 30 seconds, and count down from 5 seconds. Please finish your thought at the end of the speech even if you run out of time (you do not need to stop instantly when your time runs out). Please don't abuse this and speak extensively past your allocated time - I will deduct speaker points for doing so. I ask that the calling of cards is kept to a minimum (only call for cards if they sound wrong, not if you have no response prepared). As a judge, I will adopt the same mindset. Please be aware that I have done some background research on the topic and am likely to pick up on the fabrication of a piece of evidence, however. If there is a point in round that I know to be flat out wrong, I will not consider my outside knowledge in reference to said point. When considering arguments and their corresponding rebuttals, I will judge the winner of the point to be the team that provided good logical warranting over those with empirics they may not fully understand. Your research is a tool to understand the topic and effectively make your case. However, it is my belief debate tournaments are activities designed to cultivate the flexibility and logic of students' thinking, hence my proclivity for logic-based argumentation. I expect civility, direct interaction of arguments, and a solid grasp of the topic by every debater. Good luck in the round!

For Public Forum Specifically:

In cross I expect teams to seek concessions about key points, or information about their opponent's case (cross is not a speech, do not treat it as such). When considering the round, I will not flow through anything that was not mentioned in the summary speeches or final focus (I will assume they have been intentionally dropped and should not be evaluated.) I will not evaluate new points raised in Final Focus, except for rebuttals raised in first final focus. I will evaluate new arguments raised in summary speeches, but for the sake of a healthy debate, I discourage doing so in the second summary speech.

For Parliamentary Specifically:

When considering the round, I will not flow through anything that was not mentioned in the summary speeches (I will assume they have been intentionally dropped and should not be evaluated.) I will not evaluate new points raised in summary speeches.

First of all, thank you for being a vital part of our debate tournament. Please be aware of pacing and clarity. Speak with emphasis, do not rush, and remember to breathe! Please clearly tie your evidence to your argument. Do not forget to have fun. Good luck!!!