Background

Junior Debater, Northview High 

2N (3 years)

Email: Faeez.juneja@gmail.com

Stuff

• Be nice. I don't come to judge and take time from my weekend to watch someone making nasty comments or hurting someone's feelings just because he/she thought it would be "funny." 
• Super policy oriented. I prefer disads + case debates and CP + DA debates. They're super fun and love those 2nrs. This by no means says that you're restricted to go for them in the 2nr. I'm down to hear 2nrs in Ks or whatever you think is bes to win. 
• Tech over truth, no exception. Reading poor, ridiculous arguments like racism good, patriarchy good, suicide good, etc. will reflect in low speaks.
• Cross Ex. I will flow this and will reward good performances in higher speaks. I think cross ex can be extremely strategic in debate and a really good time to display ethos. Don’t waste it.
• Evidence. A claim should have sufficient warranting for me to consider it a piece of viable evidence. If I call up a card after the round and see that the card doesn’t really support the claim you’re making, I’m not willing to give you credit.
• Email chains. Put me on them.
• Clarity. I'll yell clear 3 times max in a speech. I can't be flowing anything if I don't understand what you're saying. 
• Condo: 1-2: great. 3: uphill battle for the neg. 3+: nope. 
• Prep. I don't consider it prep for flashing unless it's more than 30 seconds. Then, the timer starts.
• Don't expect me to be taking track of your speech or prep. 

Aff

• I think that all affs should defend the USFG. I absolutely love topical policy affs and am fine with soft left affs that defend the state.  
• I really, really don't like K affs. I’m easily persuaded by framework against non-traditional affs.

DA:

• Love them especially specific turns case arguments
• Impact Calc is super important. Slowing down and actually doing impact comparisons is what I’m looking for.

CP:

• More neg leaning in terms of competition.
• Should have a solvency advocate. 
• Conditional Multiplank CPs are a no-no.

T:

• Should probably be able to provide a caselist when asked.
• Not really a fan of T QPQ.

K:

• I’m familiar with Security, Neolib/Cap, Heidegger, and other popular Kritiks.
• I prefer there be specific links to the aff instead of just a general link. Have them somewhere in the neg block.
• Alt explanations are super important to me. If you’re aff I encourage you to find holes in that. 

I used to compete in Lincoln Douglas debate and American Parliamentary Debate. I have some but minimal exposure to policy, public forum, congressional debate, and British Parliamentary debate (as a debater and judge).

In my view, debate ought to foster a meaningful educational environment, so I will not tolerate abusive or unproductive tactics. I am very opposed to spreading and I do not tolerate discriminatory language.

Your job as a debater is to persuade me as to why your form of debate is best/why you are right. That said, your burden is to clearly demonstrate the validity of your position through impacts; if I don't understand why your argument actually matters, I will not be convinced to vote for you based solely off of cards, unless the debate is so bad that that there is absolutely nothing else to vote off of.

Please speak clearly and at a conversational pace. Speed should not replace articulation.

Experience: Debated World Schools in Eastern and Central Europe for 6 years, and coached/judged for 4 years. This is my first time judging PF in New York, so I'm really excited to take part in this tournament!

Background:

Clashing and weighing are the things I watch out for most during rounds. It is important to me that you are actively engaging with your opponents' arguments and proving why your case matters more, has a larger impact, is more relevant, etc.

I also pay attention to the way in which you extend your arguments and ensure that they remain present or are expanded upon throughout the course of the round.

Signposting and the provision of a framework for the debate are always very helpful in keeping track of the issues being discussed.