Background:

Tawfique Elahi is currently pursuing MSc Information Systems at Lund University, Sweden. He got his bachelor's degree in computer science from NSU. He is an early-career researcher in Human-Computer Interaction.

He served as a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver; and Debate Spaces Academy, Boston. In terms of leadership experience, he is currently serving as the Head of the Lund University Debating Society, and Chairperson at the United Asian Debating Council. Previously, he was the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at ~100 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on ~25 Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, ~40 Grand Finals, and chaired ~20 elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, IPDA, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

Certifications:

• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse

• NFHS Cultural Competence Course

General Notes for speakers:

• I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
• While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
• Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
• If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
• If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
• Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
• Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
• Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
• Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
• I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

Run whatever, be kind

I did policy for two years in high school but I competed in almost every debate event. I am entirely good with progressive debate and I like unorthodox arguments, that being said if you can't defend your arguments don't run them.

Hello!

I am an experienced Policy debater, qualing to State every year and going to Nationals my Senior year. I vote tabula rasa, and won't allow my own views to intercept and alter my perception of your arguments. Feel free to run whatever you want, I am a fiend for the more out there arguments (ran my own Kant K most of Senior year). I vote off of tech and flow. If you don't warrant your claims with ev, I implicitly don't buy and will not flow.

As for the debaters themselves. No harsh words or discrimination towards each other (don't mind untargeted harsh words, nevertheless). There will be no sexism, racism, bigotry, etc. Not even jokingly. If this ensues, I will walk you to Tab.

please please please add me to the email chain - xmanguia@gmail.com

I don't really care other than that so feel free to let loose and have fun! Y'all are already eons awesomer because you are doing this so be confident and HAVE FUN!

-x

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm: LD is traditionally a values debate, and should be done as so. One's case should successfully uphold their value and their criterion while having the best evidence to support it. LD is not solely focused on evidence, we must also analyze the values and morals.

Additionally, a round can be won or lost during cross-examination. Time should be used wisely, questions should be well thought out, and the exchange should be referenced in later speeches.

Competitors must speak clearly, and maintain professionalism.