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 HS, Quarry Lane, Brookfield East (2021-), Ransom RT (2021-)

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".

Other: If you read Empiricus 200AD in any round, I will guarantee you a 30. If you do not know what this is, please contact justinzhang0706@gmail.com to get this argument.

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.

Strike me if you are not sending speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal. This needs to be done BEFORE the speech and over EMAIL.

I am currently the Head Public Forum Coach at The Quarry Lane School

Quartered at the TOC and have done some policy @ Wake if that matters to you

Current Conflicts: Quarry Lane (2020-present), Bergen County (2021-present), North Broward (Alumni), Ardrey Kell (2020-2021), Flanagan (2020)

Add me to the email chain: katzto20@wfu.edu

Lets skip GCX (take 30 seconds of prep each) *Both teams need to agree

It's PF, I don't need a 30 second roadmap

Tech>Truth

Zoom:

-Turn on your cameras

-Email Chains should be standard

-Use the chat

-"I had connection problems" is a fine excuse to clarify arguments in the debate. Don't abuse this though.

Public Forum:

Impact calculus is the most important part of public forum. Explaining why your impact is more significant than your opponents will win you the round if you win your links. Explaining evidence is a part of extending it. For example, "Extend Ferguson 14 from our case" is not an extension, but "Extend Ferguson in 14 who explains that the BRI has been responsible for pushing 40 countries into high debt because countries cannot pay back loans" is an extension. Don't drop arguments. Dropped arguments are extremely difficult to recover from, and in the majority of cases, if a team weighs and implicates their argument, it's game over. I will be flowing on my computer using excel. A link or impact spin I could see coming is not new.

2nd rebuttal should answer the 1st. First summary needs to extend defense given the 3-minute summary change. Cohesion from summary to final focus is vital in gaining offense from your argument. I don't love new argument spins in final focus, but if it was brought up in cross and is something I could see coming it is not considered new. I presume the status quo unless you argue otherwise.

I will disclose my decision in every debate. I will do my best to give the best feedback possible and provide insight into why I made the decision I did. If you have any questions about the round please feel free to ask or message me on facebook after the debate.

Read (kritiks, theory, disads, counterplans, etc). For background, I come from a policy centric team and have experience debating kritiks and running theory. I like hearing unique arguments, feel free to read them. I do think disclosure and reading cut cards are good norms. Ultimately, I am cool with any kind of argument you decide to read, at any pace you decide to read it at as long as it is carded.

Stealing prep time is never a good idea. If you see your opponents stealing prep, call them out.

Paraphrasing in public forum is OK. However, in an effort to create better evidence ethics in public forum, I encourage teams to read cards. If you read cards in constructive, I will give you a slight (+.2) speaker point bump. For another slight (+.2) speaker point bump, in an effort to create better evidence ethics, disclose your case on the NDCA PF wiki. This is not a requirement by any means, but if you decide to do either or both of these things let me know. A guide on how to disclose can be found here

I will also call for all evidence that you tell me to in a debate round.

Average speaker points (2021 Season): 28.3

hey y’all :) I’m a third year debater for quarry lane

put me on the email chain: spatel0275@gmail.com

- send speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal BEFORE the speech.

as a judge, I expect you to be respectful and inclusive in round — don’t read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because they WILL NOT be evaluated and you will most likely get terrible speaks/get dropped. also, if your argument(s) cover sensitive subject areas, please read a content warning.

- tech > truth

- speed: I’m good with speed but if you’re going really fast (>250 WPM) and don't send a speech doc I'm going to miss things.

- have comparative warranting, it makes it difficult to evaluate direct clash if there's no fleshed out warrants — I will generally prefer well-warranted arguments over a dump of unwarranted ev

weigh!! -- comparative weighing + impact calc are v important so make sure it's there

- i like to see metaweighing -- if both sides are going for different mechanisms (ie: magnitude vs probability), it makes it much easier to evaluate clash

frontline in second rebuttal -- frontline all responses against arguments that you want to go for in the second rebuttal, if you don't frontline defense against an argument that you go for, and your opponents extend it, I'll evaluate it as conceded

- also, defense is NOT sticky -- something must be in summary and final focus at a minimum to make it into the ballot. the final focus should essentially parallel the summary

extensions: extend the entire argument -- (ex. saying "extend the john '19 turn" is not enough for you to go for that turn) Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Cohesion between the summary and ff are v important

signpost! -- i generally flow well but if your speech is messy, disorganized, and not well signposted i could miss stuff on the flow which obv is not good.

other:

- send speech docs/evidence before your speech!

- don't take an excessive amount of time to send evidence and don't steal prep while your opponents are sending evidence

- don't go over time, there's a grace period of ten seconds but anything beyond that is way over

- solid time allocation, efficiency, quality responses, and strategic round strategy = good speaks (i care less about speaking style, more about how strategic youre being)

- I don't really pay attention to cross but be nice! — I won’t evaluate something from cross unless you bring it up in a speech.

3rd year on the Circuit

Add me to the email chain: 2005amrit@gmail.com

Tech > Truth (You can win an argument saying that the 1 + 1 = 3 if your opponent does not respond to it, I believe doing anything otherwise is judge intervention)

I require speech docs to be sent before constructive and rebuttal speeches

Frontline all offense in second rebuttal and defense on the arg ur going for (by all means frontline everything I think its a good strat)

Summary should extend defense

When you are extending responses on your opponents case please interact with their frontlines otherwise you're just wasting time.

No new weighing in second FF, very minimal new weighing allowed in First FF

IMPACT CALCULUS: this is what wins you debates. If you clearly explain to me and give warrants as to why your impacts matter more than your opponents, you're much more likely to win if they don't. Some common mechanisms include Probability, Magnitude etc.

Speaks:

+1 if you read cut cards in case

Auto 30 if you read straight from cut cards in both rebuttal and case

Progressive:

Shells:

Familiar with most (Paraphrasing, Disclosure, TW) , I can't judge a full fledged theory debate nearly as well as others so run at your own risk

Kritiques:

Can't judge them feel free to run at your own risk i will try my best, read a ROTB

Other:

Be respectful

Have Fun!