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 - I've judged several tournaments over the last year and I love hearing different points of view.

First -- make sure I can understand you. If you go fast and mumble, I won't hear your points and will have a hard time following your arguments. Ideally, enumerate your points so I can follow them and keep track of them throughout the argument. If you go fast, make sure I can get your points! Otherwise, focus on what's most important and share that with me.

Second -- use your time! If you have 4 minutes, make the most of it.

Third -- Cite your sources. It is important that you do this so I can compare evidence. Then tell me why those points are important.

Fourth -- (but probably most important) Be respectful. Good sportsmanship and being kind is important to me. If you insult or talk down to the other team, I will not be impressed.

Lastly, listen to the other team.

Good luck!

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 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.

Former HS debater in PF and Policy. Please make the debate interesting and don't yell over each other. I used to be y'all so I know how it is, I like to listen and occasionally flow and if I'm judging PF don't start spreading. Thanks!

Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Speaking too fast will not show you know more, rather it may make it difficult to be able to note every point. Good luck to all!

It is good practice to show the Weighing of Arguments including Scope, Timeframer, Other -"isms", Magnitutude & probability when addressing both your team's and your opponent's arguments.

Use crossfire to your advantage: ask questions that are friendly to your arguments, while also asking questions that break down or require additional proof to the opposing team's presented arguments, and then - BRING IT UP in the next round. Saying it in cross is not enough, you must use it to prove your argument's merit.

Poor sportsmanship including Ad Hominem attacks will not be tolerated.

livingston high school '20 (4 years PF, debated @ TOC + Nats) | university of california, berkeley '24

ishan.saxena@berkeley.edu for the email chain

warrants matter (in all speeches would be ideal)

comparatively weigh

debate however you want

be a good person

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

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!!!