Shahzeb Khan

QLS '27

shahzebmk9@gmail.com

hey! I’m tiffany a pf debater for quarry lane :)

tech > truth

I’m ok with a fast pace, just be clear. If you’re going really fast please send a speech doc.

Frontline in second rebuttal, and please collapse! Completely extend (uniqueness, links, impacts) offense and defense in summary and final focus. no new arguments in second summary or final focus. 

Please signpost, it really helps with flowing!

Interact with the other side don't just repeat your arguments, implicate your arguments (if something is conceded tell me why it matters)

Start weighing as soon as possible, do comparative weighing (link and impact preferably). I'll look to weighing first when evaluating the round.

Progressive args: I'm somewhat familiar with theory, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. Don't run frivolous theory. I'm not familiar with Ks, read at your own risk (explain it really well if you do run them)

For LD: I have no topic knowledge, so explain stuff well :)

speaks:

Clarity, be strategic, humor = good speaks

Reading cut cards and sending speech docs (before the speech) is good

Don't go too much over time, steal prep, or be disrespectful

Good luck and have fun!

add me to the email chain: krishivmanyam@gmail.com

pretty standard tech judge imo

defense isn't sticky - everything in ff needs to be in summary

frontline in 2nd rebuttal

all argument is both summary and ff have to be extended, warranted, and weighed for it to be on my ballot

speed:

Frankly not the best with flowing so send speechdocs if you’re gonna spread

theory:

don't have too much experience with theory outside of disclo and parphrasing but I can probably evaluate most shells as long as they are clearly explained and warranted.

my personal beliefs are that friv theory and paraphrasing are bad, and disclosure is good, but I will not hack for these args.

Non-Topical Positions/Ks

have close to zero experience with these and probably can't evaluate them at any level

if you want to run these, please strike me

Speaks:

as long as you are respectful and don't cheat, you wont get lower than a 27

IF YOU STEAL PREP, I WILL TANK SPEAKS

Speaks are capped at 27.5 in any varsity pf round if you dont sent constructive speechdocs

I will boost speaks if you:

- Send Rebuttal speechdocs(+0.2)

- Read only cut cards in Constructive and Rebuttal(+0.1)

- Weigh in Rebuttal(+0.1)

- Take less than 2 mins to compile and send all evidence(+0.2)

quarry lane 27’

POLICY:

I flow in my head, I believe this to be an underrated strategy which saves paper

Automatic 30 if the 1AC has 5+ advantages or the 1NC has 11+ off

K:

familiar with most simple Ks (Baudrillard, Batille, Delueze, Moten, antiblackness, fem IR, etc.

when you read a high theory K such as cap, setcol or security I will likely be confused.

CP:

please read legit counterplans (concon, courts, uncooperative federalism, offsets, and delay counterplans are all amazing)

i will dock your speaks if you read cheating counterplans such as deficits, states, and “well researched” advantage counterplans that solve the aff.

AUTOMATIC 30 SPEAKS IF YOU READ THE KKK PIC

DA:

5-word intrinsic perms and fiat solves arguments are super good and fair, and are probably what the 2ar should be. Well-researched elections DAs are likely to outweigh and turn the aff.

T:

ever since I lost round 6 at dsds 1 to “T-in-the-U.S”, I have HATED topicality. Don’t read T unless you want an L+25

Case:

I will reward strategic arguments on case such as impact turns (i love wipeout), and hiding ASPEC and FSPEC under solvency. Every SPEC hidden under a case page will gain you +0.1 speaker points.

PF:

automatic 30 if you spread all of your speeches without analytics. the ideal condtructive should have disclosure theory, paraphrasing theory, and a K

*this paradigm is a joke*

Hi my name is Charvi Saxena. I have two years of prior experience in the speech events of HI, OO, and impromptu. I mostly judge based on structure, and content, and based on the speech event -> accents, blocking, examples, data, etc. Please reach out to me at charpay1408@gmail.com if you have any questions.

I'm a junior at Quarry Lane.

30 Speaks if you run a crazy contention

I have competed in PF for about 1.5 years and I've been to TOC Sophomore year.

I really respect the "public" aspect of debate. Though I am a flow judge, I do enjoy more thorough and comprehensive debates over jaw spasming to speak at 200 words per second. To put it simply: debate like you would for a flow judge, I'm not fine with spreading, I'm fine with theory, I will vote off the flow only, but do not go 200 wps.

I really, really do appreciate non-stock contentions. I will boost speaker points if you run a true non-stock contention.

Have fun debating. If you're a novice, take it light. Ease into the game, stick to the flow. No one cares what tournaments you win as novice, they care about what tournaments you win as Varsity. Play in the novice division not to win, but to learn. Also, if you are spreading in any novice division, I WILL DROP YOU. if you run theory in any novice division, that's kind of funny.

Never hesitate to ask questions after round. It is your job to ask questions and my job as a judge to help you to be a better debater in later divisions. Please do not include me in the email chain. I will only check evidence if a side asks me specifically to read it.

Last thing: Please dress formal, you won't show up to a basketball game wearing sweatpants and no shirt. Similarly, don't show up to the debate without looking presentable.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Put me on the chain: quarrylaneyy@gmail.com AND debate@student.quarrylane.org

tech > truth

Hi, I'm Sam, a Junior at the Quarry Lane School. I've done PF debate for the past 5 years and I dabbled in Policy earlier this year.

Tech > Truth

I will be able to give a decent decision in Case/DA debates but will need more judge instruction with T, K, and complex CPs debates.