Debate Events:

I graduated from Plano West in 2018 and competed in my Junior and Senior years in PF and IX. I approve of wearing fedoras in round.

I'm not the picky type, so I'll just be going over some general things.

Treat me like a more lay judge, meaning you will need to explain things as if I have never been anywhere near debate in my life, and will need to be clear. Spreading should be minimal as if I can't understand, I will not be able flow it, and that certainly won't be helping your case. With that in mind, be loud as well. That tends to help with clarity.

Speaks: I'll be lenient for the most part, so expect high points, within the 28-30 range. Unless you're being uncivil, in which case, expect something lower.

As for things within the round itself, the usual will apply. Have warrants, don't fire off as many cards as you can without purpose, have warrants again and make sure you weigh your arguments.

Most importantly, BE CIVIL. Especially in crossfire, or you'll lose speaker points and potentially more.

Congress:

Direct me to the exit, because I probably wandered in by accident and am definitely lost and in the wrong room.

I'm your typical flow judge and I will evaluate any argument you put on the flow unless it's racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. I did PF for 4 years at Colleyville Heritage so I understand jargon and whatnot but please don't spread. Treat me like a lay judge to the best of your ability. I usually don't know anything about the topic, but I do understand how debate works so adapt.

A few things to remember...

1. Sign post. If you do not then your arguments wont be flowed, wont be flowed where you want it to be or not at all.

2. Extensions. Please extend key things like framework/overviews in all your speeches. If it's not in summary I wont evaluate it in final focus unless the round is so muddled that I'm forced to; dont make me do that. Also, if something important is dropped, extend it because I wont do that for you.

3. If it's a panel and there are lay judges please adapt to them but make sure to still weigh in the round so my ballot comes just as simply as theirs.

4. I will evaluate any argument, but with that being said I will not make my own analysis for you and I cannot read your flow or your mind so make sure you and I are on the same track or that will only hurt you. Moreover, if there is not a clear warrant for me to extend, I will be forced to default to whatever makes the most sense no matter how much you weigh the arguments.

5. I dont understand spreading so please don't spread or I will just sit there extremely confused. I also seriously despise topicality and theory debates and I just don't think they belong in PF.

6. I love framework and I think it can make the round way easier to weigh but if you stray from it, then I will be forced to as well and with the way your case is framed that might honestly hurt you so do so at your own risk.

Framework clashing is good. Also, please don't spread!

Safwaan Chaudhry

Participated in PF Debate and LD through my 4 years at Richardson High School.

Now attending The University of Texas at Dallas.

General Paradigms -

I'm very straight forward with my judging and will focus on the information that YOU provide. I will not come to any of my own conclusions based on my knowledge about the case. It is YOURjob to provide me with the information, its impact, and why it should be a reason I vote in your favor. This means that you provide clear warrants and links. I will flow the entirety of the round and will answer any questions you may have at the end. Your summary and final focus should consist of the arguments you have fleshed out and deemed impactful throughout the debate. Please do not bring up dropped/dead arguments at the very end of the round, I will not weigh them heavily. If it is important, bring it up earlier.

The Debate -

Continue to bring up your key points and address your opponents arguments thoroughly. This doesn't mean to keep repeating your argument. When extending arguments, include warrants, links, and impacts. There is no excuse to not do so.

During cross examination, try to fully understand your opponents argument and dissect it. Do not keep running in circles around each other it wastes the limited time you have to make your argument.

Speed -

I can tolerate spreading and fast speaking, however make sure with your opponents that they can handle spreading. It kills the point of the debate if no one can understand you. Make sure to slow down on taglines and warrants that are important for your case. Also please make sure you can actually spread before attempting to do so, if I cannot understand you I will put my pen down and stop flowing.

Speaks -

I'm very lenient with speaker points and will give 28-30s. However, if you are rude or disrespectful I will lower your score (I will first provide a verbal warning, after that I will begin to lower your score).

General -

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well. I am not strict about going over time and will allow you to finish your thought but if you go too long over time I will stop you.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round, but only in close rounds and special circumstances.

Be respectful to each other in cross examination. As courtesy allow the first speaker to have the first question

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.

I judge LD, PFD, Congress, I.E.'s. Coached for 14 years and participated in more of the interp stuff when I was in high school, but that was a long time ago so don't hold it against me.

I am big picture for LD/PFD. I try to keep a tidy flow. I like solvency but don't necessarily need to vote on it if the resolution doesn't call for offense. I will vote on progressive or theory if steps are clearly defined throughout. I dislike spreading as it's not necessary. I frown upon evaluating specific cards as RFD because I don't know the authors' mindsets most of the time. I'm cool with Disads and CPs in PFD at TFA tournaments but avoid them for NSDA. In PFD, you should prefer using weighing mechanisms for your actual case instead of frontlining responses to your opponent. Students who use "kick the case and focus on responses" in PFD should probably just switch to LD or CX if they want to debate long-term. For speaker points, I typically start everyone out at the max and deduct from there, but because of their arbitrary nature, I don't have huge variances or decimals.

Congress: know your parliamentary procedure and role in the chamber. At TFA tournaments, I typically give 3's for decent attempts at a speech with some sources and some reading. 6's are very rare for me. I know that's tougher than other judges, but it doesn't affect ranks. Another thing to consider for Congress is your role of politicking. I think Congress should be treated as a competition in which the participants are able to speak on either side of legislation without regard to what other competitors are able to/going to do. That means you can "steal" a speech from someone who was waiting for their turn as part of the round, and I won't rank you down if you do a good job. Direct questioning should be concise and meaningful, not just an attempt to throw your own 2 cents in. Presiding officers don't auto-break from prelims; you need to be outstanding and any flubs or parliamentary procedure errors will result in lower hourly scores.

World Schools: I'm new to it but I tend to treat it sort of like my speaker points for PFD and LD. I start everyone out high and then work my way down. I'm less attentive about POI's because I'm usually listening/writing, so I don't mind if you're trying more than 10 times to request them.

Public Speaking: Conversational delivery necessary. I'm more of an "appeal to logos" guy than "appeal to pathos" in Extemp, so save the emotional pleas for things like Oratory instead. I will rank down if you're trying to push the grace period as part of the speech in general. I don't mind canned intros in Extemp, but at least connect to the prompt. Oratory should follow a clear format like "problem, effects, solutions" and not be a personal venting session. Informative speeches MUST have visual aids; considering it's the only real event that showcases one's ability to inform in this manner, I think you should prioritize all types of measures to inform the audience.

Interp: Teasers and/or cold opens are necessary and the prepared intro should follow a format that gets the audience to understand WHY you chose the piece. Characterizations must be consistent. Be cautious and selective about how you employ accents around me (i.e. not everyone is southern or from Long Island). I frustrate during thematic pieces like poetry or POI if I can't tell which selection you're on. Build upon the theme in the prepared intro and fully list the authors and selections instead of just saying "a program."

Experienced debater in LD, PF, Congress.

I will flow any argument if it makes sense.

Remember this is Public Forum debate, you should speak clearly and have clear arguments.

anything is good enough if you can link it properly.

Lets have a good time, and don't forget to actually debate and promote good quality discourse.

Experienced in PF, LD, extemp, and all speech events.

Spreading

I’m good with speed but if I have to say clear more than 3 times I will write it down.

Types of debates/Kritiks

I accept K’s and will flow any debate as long as it’s easy to follow.

Guests

I'm okay with a friend watching the round as long as the opponent is as well.

Timing

Keep time for yourselves, flex prep is okay as long as everyone in the debate agrees.

Disclosing

Depends on the round. I will let you know by the end of the debate if I'm disclosing or not.

Overall

Be respectful to everyone in the room and enjoy the tourney!

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-2021)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments since 2008. These days, I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

Pro Tip - I am not a lay judge, but I think we will all be happier if you act like I am.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

*TOC* '22 - Helping some kids out, guess I'm back just for this one tournament

Conflicts: Walt Whitman DP and Marist School

Background: Plano West Class of '18, Was affiliated with Hebron ('18-19), Colleyville Heritage ('19-20), The Marist School ('20-21), Worked with debaters from Plano East ('19-21), Coppell ('19-21), Westlake ('19-20), and Walt Whitman ('20-21)

If you're really that curious about anything else check judging record I guess.

My speaks used to average in the mid 27's if that matters

I don't even know why I have to say this, safety is critical to participation, if you make the round unsafe it's a stop the round L0, trip to tab

Top level notes (I.e. Important Stuff):

-I have not been involved in circuit debate since this tournament last year. I have not thought about arguments, I have not done research, I have not coached. My level of competency for fast, technical debates is undoubtedly lower than it used to be

-Arguments and styles that appeal to a lay audience are both good and useful but do not confuse this with the "truth > tech" nonsense. Full link chains are still required and any argument is founded on a warrant. Conceded arguments are 100% true, I don't care how ridiculous you make them out to be. If you think they're non-sensical the burden's on you.

-Speeches are meant to build on top of one another. The role of the rebuttal is to address offense - this means you should be covering turns/disads/etc. in the 2R. No, "sticky defense" is not a thing. What is in summary should be in final focus and vice versa. No new arguments in the second final focus, that's ridiculous.

-You should be weighing. Weighing should be comparative. Weighing is an argument and therefore should be warranted. Weighing should be introduced as. early. as. possible.

-Your backhalf extensions ought to be extensions of the full argument. UQ -> Link -> I. Link -> Impact. Don't forget the warrants or the impact, those are kinda important and tend to be left out more often than not.

-Crossfire does not matter, I do not listen to crossfire, I'm probably writing notes on the ballot. If something important happens in cx bring it up in speech proper

Other Stuff:

-Progressive arguments? Used to be okay with them, now it's a run at your own risk. I probably don't remember much. I was kinda a disclosure and paraphrasing-bad hack but if you win the argument you win the argument. No I will not vote on impact turns that teams should lose for disclosing or cutting cards. Yes you need an offense to win an RVI. Yes you automatically lose if it's competing interps and you don't defend a competing interp. Yes theory is apriori to case.

-Speed? I used to be able to process things pretty quick but I'm old now and out of practice so my brain probably can't handle super speed too well. Go at your own risk.

-Evidence? If I can resolve the round without looking at evidence, I will not call for evidence. I will not call for evidence if the round is difficult to resolve. However, I will call for evidence if I am told to do so and it affects the outcome of the round or if I am told that evidence is misrepresented or miscut. If your evidence ethics are hot steaming garbage that's an easy way to get L20. You've been warned

-Presumption? Used to presume neg, I guess that's still a thing? Convince me otherwise, y'all are debaters.

-Speaks? Speaks for content, I don't care about delivery unless I can't understand you. You get three clears before I put my pen down. If you've disclosed, remind me and I'll bump you.

If you have any other questions please ask. I've undoubtedly forgotten something that's probably important

debate is a meme lolz just don’t be bad

1. second rebuttal doesn’t need to respond to first unless it’s a turn

2. defense is sticky in first summary unless second rebuttal responded to first

3. fine w speed if you enunciate well

4. will only vote on offense if it’s in both summary and final focus

5. pls implicate your arguments, whether it's defense or offense. brain can't handle when two contradicting args/cards are thrown at me without some kind of warrant comparison or smth and i'll be forced to intervene in some way.

6. pls extend all parts of your argument (warrant and impact) in last two speeches if you want me to evaluate it

Ask me questions before the round