TOC Update: Must send speech docs and cards before every carded speech --> cases and rebuttal especially. This means your case (paraphrased is fine) WITH cards. If you don't, you get capped at a 27.5. If you do, you start at a 28.5.

----------------------------

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".

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.

-----

I will never forget the day Shabbir saved me from the slums of India. I had grown up in a small village where opportunities were scarce and I was struggling to make ends meet. I was living in a tiny, cramped shack in the slums and barely able to afford the basic necessities for myself and my family.

One day, while I was scavenging for scraps to sell, I came across a flyer for a free workshop on entrepreneurship. I had always dreamed of starting my own business, but I didn't have the resources or the know-how to make it happen. So, I decided to attend the workshop and see what I could learn.

That's where I met Shabbir. He was the leader of the workshop and he had a wealth of knowledge and experience when it came to starting and running a business. He was kind, compassionate, and he truly cared about helping others succeed. He saw potential in me and he took me under his wing, teaching me everything he knew and providing me with the support and guidance I needed to get my business off the ground.

But Shabbir didn't stop there. He recognized that I had the potential to achieve even more and he encouraged me to apply to Hustlers University, a prestigious business school that could provide me with the education and opportunities I needed to succeed. I was hesitant at first, not sure if I was good enough or deserving enough. But with Shabbir's encouragement and support, I mustered up the courage to apply and, to my surprise, I was accepted.

Thanks to Shabbir's help, I was able to escape the slums and attend Hustlers University, where I received a top-notch education and gained the skills and knowledge I needed to succeed in the business world. And with Shabbir's guidance and support, I was able to turn my dream into a reality, starting my own successful business and leaving poverty behind for good.

I will forever be grateful to Shabbir for his kindness and his willingness to help me succeed. Without him, I don't know where I would be today. He truly saved me from the slums and gave me the chance to live a better life.

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.

It's currently 2023. I'm an LD/Policy debater. None of this is steadfast, if both teams agree, I can judge in whatever way you want.

In general:

- Tech>everything. Truth isn't real in debate

- Clarity>speed; going fast is fine

- In debate I prefer the "author + claim + warrant + data+impact" model.

- Make sure to signpost if I don't know where I am on the flow it'll tank your speaks.

- Pls pls pls collapse as my coach always says "It's better to hit a home run than to hit two singles".

- It's really hard to win a debate purely off of defense (hard is not impossible), some offense helps most of the time.

- Humor will get you better speaks, and I rarely get offended by much.

- I probably won't read any evidence you send in rounds unless it's under dispute, or there's actual evidence of abuse.

- I believe in open source, in an ideal scenario. Everyone would have everything they read in rounds openly sourced. I mandate speech docs.

- just to get an idea of where to pref me here's my ideal panel: Ani Prabhu, Vinay Ayyappan, Rafael Pierry, Debnil Sur, Tyler Thur

Speaker Points:

I try to give good points. My general scale is as follows:

29.4+ --- Top speaker

29.1-29.3 --- Late elims

28.9-29.1 --- Mid elims

28.7-28.9 --- Debating to clear

28.5-28.7 --- Even

28.0-28.5 --- Below even

Below 28 --- Other

Below 27 --- Disrespectful, I didn't like you, (reminded me too much of myself /j)

DAs:

- I'm a massive DA case debater

- Intrinsic perm is dumb. I firmly believe that the plan should stay the same no matter what. Adding things that are not intrinsic to the plan text is a way to get judges to vote for multiple advocacies and a way to skew the neg. It is stupid.

- normal means makes a lot of sense, make sure you make the arg if your DA relies on normal means. ex: "plan at the bottom of the docket"

Framework:

- Framework should not be arbitrary. An arbitrary FW is "they're not policy debate" I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

- Framework debate is kinda hard these days. It's lowkey an uphill battle, for debaters that show promise, I'll reward their speaks.

- Counter-Interps shouldn't be stupid. For example "we're in the direction of the aff" -> wack CI

Substance/Case debate:

- Depth in warranting>breadth in coverage. One good warrant in rebuttal is better than 5 cards that do the same thing.

- IMPACT CALC WILL NOT BEGIN LATER THAN 1ST REBUTTAL OR 1AR.

- I like clash in rounds, in-depth debates are good.

- Case debate is my favorite form of debate. I enjoy in-depth case vs DA rounds.

Theory:

- I tend to debate theory a lot.

- I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I won't vote against a team who paraphrases UNLESS someone runs theory.

- Evidence abuse/bad ethics makes this debate a lot better

- I'll be happy to vote off of paraphrasing theory, or disclosure theory.

- Ran condo a lot; CONDO begins no later than the 2NR

- Performative contractions are fine too, abuse makes it better

- I hate stupid RVI's with a burning passion, only excusable if someone does something like 7-8 off. If you run them and it's left unanswered, I'll consider voting off it.

- I'll evaluate any theoretical argument, even if some might call it "frivolous".

- OVERALL: I think theory is good, and that every debater should learn how to cut cards.

Topicality:

- Theory = Topicality, unless someone makes an arg placing one before the other

- I'll vote off of a stupid T shell

- If you're winning T go for it

- Abuse makes the shell better

- T is dying, not many people are good at it, if you are an exception I'll give good speaks

Critiques:

- k = da; alt = cp If you lose the cp it does not mean that you lose the da. the links are still das to the aff

- Impact your K in the context of the aff (does the aff solve, k turn the aff, k = no solvency for the aff), add an external impact (kinda like a DA), and then weigh.

- take care of the uniqueness debate, either the alt solves uniqueness or the uniqueness debate doesn't matter

- ROLE OF THE BALLOT do not use rotb to skip weighing, just because you win rotb doesn't mean you can stop weighing

Performance:

- I don't particularly appreciate watching debates that boil down to who's the most disadvantaged, or whose identity matters more it's really stupid

- The ballot goes to the team that attempted to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. Performance is just debate.

- I find it upsetting that most of these debates tend to be a little too personal for comfort, and tend to end with a chest-beating plan-plan action

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counter-interp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks (unless you have violated any previous clauses related to speaker points), if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.

EVENT SPECIFIC

PF:

-Stop stealing prep. Seriously. Stop. It is not cute. Asking to see a source is not an opportunity for your partners to keep prepping. If a speech or prep timer isn't going, you should not write on your flows or do anything that looks like prepping. I see this in a disturbing number of PF rounds. Stop

• Evidence ethics are terrible in PF, I'm more inclined to vote for teams who have better evidence.

-Give a useful road map or none at all. Do not add a bunch of commentaries. A road map should tell a judge what order to put pieces of flow paper into and nothing more. Save your arguments for your speech time.

-Paraphrasing is terrible. Read quotations. Send out ev in carded form ahead of time. If you are a varsity, national circuit-level competitor, you should have figured out efficient ways to manage to allow the other team to review your evidence.

Policy:

• In policy, I was a policy debater, I ran politics all the time, and sometimes I'd run security. That being said, that shouldn't discourage you to read whatever you want to.

LD:

• Whatever goes. In LD, I ran the ESL K, Dice Roll (Nietzche), and the Data K.

As always be respectful in rounds, and have fun. Debate is meant for you to gain life skills and have fun with people. Enjoy!