Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Note: you must be able to send EVERY piece of ev you read as CUT CARDS (whether its case, rebuttal, etc., idc) in a REASONABLE amount of time (i.e., not "looking" for five min, taking 2+ min to send literal case, etc. –– i get it if its like 4 unique cards scattered through case or rebuttal but be organized plz). if your ev is not cut/highlighted and/or does not include a non-paywalled link to the full article, im dropping it (the ev) from the debate and ur speaks will be max 27.5. whether its a voting issue depends on your opponents decision to run theory (but i'll prob be predisposed if the violation is really egregious). if this is an issue, STRIKE ME.

TL;DR

I did PF reasonably competitively for 4 years. Tab, but wouldnt suggest K or high level theory debate in front of me. have good evidence and send it quickly. extend and weigh. nothing is "sticky" – I want to hear everything you plan on extending in final in summary. i will boost your speaks if i think you should break, will do the opposite if I think otherwise. Don't make me hate the round please.

also, a lot of this stuff is natcirc focused cuz its where I anticipate virtual judging staying around in, but if im at locals and stuff, j have some fun -- I really enjoy a well done "flay" round.

Hi. My name is Kendall Carll. I am a senior debater for Lovejoy. I'm tab, but you prob don't want to get into a K debate at any high level in front of me. If you just got your pairing, its cool to ask me what my paradigm is half the stuff below is from other peoples anyways lol. If you tell me a good joke before round, I will like you.

kendallcarll3@gmail.com

Shabbir's paradigm is spot on and p in depth, I've copied/edited portions I agree with here (most of it):

Online Debate

1. Cameras on at all times.
2. Establish a method of evidence sharing before the round starts. If you plan to speak faster than "PF quick," send a doc in advance. Always be ready to send constructives if your me or your opponents asks (speaks will be reduced 1+ pts if you refuse/can't – my advice for your opponents if you refuse is to call every one of your cards). same for rebuttal but I won't dock speaks automatically cuz i get not everyone makes speech docs off rip.
3. If you get called out for stealing prep and you clearly are, speaks will be low. To avoid this - stay unmuted when a team is sending evidence over.

Public Forum Basics

1. I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with a comparatively weighed impact at the end of the round
2. Extend the arguments themselves - the names of each author aren't required but always appreciated
3. To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
4. Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count, and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives either

PF Rebuttal

1. Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense it's conceded, and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
2. Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter -- also means no sweeingly different "implications" later on
3. Dumping DA's in second rebuttal can be made into a voting issue, but I don't have a predisposition on this issue

PF Summary/Final Focus

1. Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - sticky defense doesn't exist
2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
3. Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
4. Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded

Theory

1. Any shell in a Varsity division is fair game - that being said, the more frivolous the argument, the lower the threshold for responses. Below are my preferences on common shells ran in PF.
2. Theory about non-evidentiary ethics - things such as misgendering, violence, content warnings, etc. are good to read with a higher chance I vote off of the first 2 if there is clear abuse.
3. Theory about evidence-related practices - paraphrasing, disclosure, etc. are fair game (i like para)
4. Theory that has nothing to do with content in the round - take a guess
5. Do a few things in ANY theory debate to increase your chances of winning - a) clearly extend EVERY part of the shell: this means the actual interp, not the spirit of it, and clear standards, voters, and paradigm issues, b) engage with the CI and do weighing - explain why your CI about full-text disclosure betters the activity in some way related to a standard you read compared to your opponents interp about open sourcing
6. For locals only, if your opponents are clearly unintentionally violating/not familiar with theory/bad on the flow, i encourage you to just stick w substance. I am confident I can spot it out and make the right call on the round, and I will prob boost ur speaks for it. if its not worth the risk to you, just try to make the theory educational for your opponents -- ive had rounds where i probably shouldn't have read theory that turned into rly cool teaching opps, so it can go both ways.

Evidence

1. Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
2. If you take more than 2 minutes to find a singular piece of evidence, speaks will be low.
3. Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss
4. I'll probably never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate

Post-Round Info

1. I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, email me and I will + any written feedback + speaks
2. Post-round, but I won't change my decision - this should be a means to learn what you could've improved on instead of trying to get me to change my ballot, which isn't possible. that said, im sure ill make a mistake in decision at some point(s).

Xtra Stuff

I won't intervene unless I perceive the round as being tangibly harmful, violent, etc., but I do have a couple strong opinions:

1) "Theory is bad for PF" is both a theoretical argument about theoretical argumentation and a really effective way to lose the original shell (so is "Ks are bad for PF").

2) "Their argument just doesn't make sense" will not make it onto my flow (i.e., if you read nothing else on an arg besides this, its dropped)

3) I think teams who paraphrase and then can't send cut cards should lose – but I won't intervene past tanking speaks. If you want to make it a voting issue, here is a few shells.

4) idk if this will ever matter, but here is some context about me:

-I was/am a "small school/team"

-Im a straight, white, cis, well-off male

-I have no triggerable trauma, tho content warnings are appreciated (and remember your opponents)

Background:

I am in my 3rd year of Public Forum Debate and International Extemp, and the PF Captian for Lovejoy High School. I made it to Nationals last year.

Ethics:

DO NOT say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, discriminatory, ableist, etc. That's asking for 25 speaks and a drop.

Do not be rude to your opponents. Debate is supposed to be a fun activity, no need to be rude. You will get low speaks.

Do not miscut/misread evidence. If you need to cheat to win, then you should not win at all.

Have fun!

PF Preferences:

In Round:

1) I'm a flow judge. I will catch drops. I will see your extensions through case.

2) I'm fine with moderate speed, but I will not flow if you spread. This is pf, that's not necessary.

3) I love line by line because it makes flowing for me so much easier! However, Final Focus should be the exception. Please go big picture and give me voters.

4) I automatically assume framework as cost-benefit analysis. I don't really think frameworks are effective in PF.

5) Please give me warrants to back up all your claims!!

6) DO impact weighing!

Theory:

1) I would prefer you stay away from theory debate.

2) Please do not read disclosure theory!

Case:

1) Feel free to give me any arguments! If you are going to run a unique argument, make sure it's well warranted.

Speaks:

1) If you're rude then you get low speaks

2) You will get pretty high speaks if I believe that both teams did a good job!

3) In a break round, I will give you high speaks as long as you do sufficiently well. I feel like good debaters should not be held back from breaking due to speaks.

Evidence:

1) If you want me to look at a piece of evidence I will.

2) If I call for evidence, please do not hand me a huge pdf, give me either the website, cut card, or highlight what you read on the pdf.

Other event preferences:

LD - I debated in LD for 2 years in middle school. SO I understand the format of LD. Please do not spread, I am okay with moderate speed. Do not be overly aggressive. I will try my best to judge, but this is not my regular event, so please do not overcomplicate the round.

Extemp - I have done extemp for a really long time. It isn't my strongest event, but I understand how it should go, time signals, and everything else. Just make sure to speak up, be clear, be engaging, and BE PERSUASIVE. If you want me to give you specific time signals, tell me.

Everything else - I have pretty much little to no experience. Just speak up and be clear, speak at moderate speed at max, and be respectful! I will try my best to judge the round, I apologize in advance if I'm not the best.

Competed PF for 4 years at Lovejoy High School, qualified for state 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. I also competed in College Policy last year at Indiana University. I can understand some speed, but I have not judged in months and we are online so higher speeds may not pick up well over computers. For security I would reccomend just emailing me speech docs, helps me not miss anything

I am tech over truth in that I will prefer a mediocre argument with 0 defense on it over a strong, realistic contention with 2 unanswered pieces of terminal defense.

If you want it in final focus (PF), and want it to be weighed, it should be in your summary as well. Also PLEASE DO IMPACT CALCULUS. Tell me on what scale is your impact either more likely, impactful, or far-reaching(scope).

Repeating your link chain is not extending the argument... Unless the opponent drops it completely, you must still explain what this drop means in the context of the round and why it can, or should, win you the round.

(Update for online, most of this doesn't apply as you are looking at a computer screen. Just try to keep it persuasive.) I know from experience, we all want 30's in the speaker point category, here's how you get one from me. First, be conversational, speaking like a robot in every speech and staring at your flow will not get you good speaks from me. Second, in cross, do not get bullied around and ask 1-2 total questions, but obviously be respectful and if your opponent asks for a question after you ask one, just give it to them. Third, your ability to weigh and crystallize your argument in the later speeches will come as a factor in your speaks, do not make me decide which argument is more important, tell me which one is the winner, and what specifically happened in the debate that makes that the case.(Drops, unanswered turns, non-unique's, etc.)

I am a PF-er at heart, so if you run Plan-affs, K's or other non-standard argument types.

If you have any other questions on any in-round preferences, feel free and ask me in the round.

Email is glarson3434@gmail.com

Truly I look for good impacts in a round; typically that’s what I vote off of. Emotions in a round never get you anywhere, so try to keep those out of it.

I am a traditional judge. I want to understand what you say. Diction, pace, volume are part of the presentation. Being a professional also means you look and act the part of a professional! I want to see sportsmanship and grace. I also want to see you enjoying yourself.

Debaters, you must make quality points not necessarily quantity points. Remember, it needs to have facts backed up. You have been researching these points for months, use your research to support your views. Use the research to turn your opponents arguments your way when you can.

The purpose of debate is to persuade and sway an argument. This is done with facts and logic. Know your stuff! Debaters need to make logical arguments that are easy to follow. Good debaters should be GREAT listeners and are always respectfully listening to the opposition in order to counter their points.

Debaters should not use progressive arguments and should not spread. I promise it will not be rewarded in my rounds.

In Speech rounds, make me FEEL it. Show me that your really understand the piece and character(s). Use your voice and inflection as well as your facial and physical traits to bring the piece to life. If it is funny, make me laugh. If it is sad, make me cry. When you pantomime hit all the positions right on and make sure to use the same actions over again and again, don't get sloppy as the piece continues. Stay in character all the way through. When "switching" characters, make sure you really distinguish the personalities. Have fun..... Good Luck!

Thank You!