I have actively involved in Speech and Debate for the past two years. It was only this year that I took over as head coach after being assistant coach last year. I have judge rounds in Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Prose, Poetry, Extemp and Congress. With the understanding that each competitor is at different level and that we all have differing levels of knowledge using technical jargon is not high on my list of requirements. Sometimes its easier to say the simple way. Having said that if you are familiar with technical wording then please use it as you would. When it comes to your speed of delivery, please try to keep it at a conversational speed. I have been in rounds where the speaker was talking so fast that what was being said was lost. While I understand this is a good way to keep your opponent from keeping up, I think that in an event that is based around debating you need to speak where your opponent and judge can understand you. I have found that the best signal for me is to put my pen on the table. If I'm not holding it, I'm not flowing. My note taking can be moderate to detailed depending on the arguments. I tend to flow in detail and in addition to recording your arguments I will stop and add comments on why I think it doesn't work or if I have any suggestions to make it better. I will also leave notes on how well you spoke and ways to improve. I value both style and argument but I believe that the focus of the debate should be on proving your case - which is argument. However, you need to be organized and able to think on the fly to do this successfully.

Policy- I am a policymaker I am looking for one of two things either the best plan available from either team or if the neg does not have a CP from them to prove while the aff's plan will not succeed. I do not think that nuclear war is the most imminent bad thing. Is it bad yes - am I going to automatically say neg wins they pulled the nuclear card - no. Because sometimes the aff's harms are more immediate and need to be addressed first.

LD- As far as argumentation goes I lean progressive.

In round I expect debaters to handle themselves in a professional manner. I understand that things can get heated and that is okay as long as it does not devolve into arguing, name calling and a refusal to listen to each other. You may attack, and are expected to, each others case, you may not launch a personal attack against your opponent.

Conflicts: WHS '23

Loose Conflicts (Not insta-struck): HHS '23 // OCHS '23 // PTHS '23

Case Sharing // Questions: aidanbirjandi2@gmail.com

(TLDR at the bottom, but it's very brief and there's a lot to cover so at least read the bolded stuff pls.)

(To incentivize you to read the entire thing, I placed 8 emoticons of kitties throughout my paradigm. Can you find them all?!?!)

Hello! I’m Aidan Birjandi! (He/Him). Good job reading your judges paradigm! It's the first step to a win!

I was a 4-year LD/Congress Debater from Whitehouse High School in ETX. Currently I do Parli at UT-Tyler. I love love love the competition, and community within Speech and Debate- I wouldn't be here if I didn't haha. Debate is dying, so thank you for holding it together! If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out!

__________________

Forensics Debate:

Games-Player Judge, because everyone should be tab, and above all else, debate is itself a game. I love love love wacky arguments, feel free to try DeDev, Silly Ks, or other fun arguments as long as they make sense. Fairness violations, if legitimate, are huge for me and will outweigh anything else on the flow- within reason. Major fairness violations (round stopping) are often few and far between, so don’t grasp or make something out of nothing BUT are nonetheless a serious concern. If you suspect rule breaking (fabricated evidence / unauthorized use of technology) err on the side of caution and let me know immediately, I can't help you after the round. Education, while admittedly less important to me, is still a major voting point, so winning impacts pre-fiat is huge.

While speed is expected, spread within reason. Adhere to "Clear" or "Slow" the very best you can. Your speaks will reflect this. Accessibility is huge, so if you simply outspread your opponent, and they can't keep up, I won't feel comfortable voting on drops alone.

Like most judges, I have zero tolerance for hate, racism, or any form of bigotry. If your opponent specifies their preferred pronouns, try your very best to respect them. (Asking for preferred pronouns before the round will help!)

Speaker points shouldn't be your primary concern, but it's cool if they are! My formative years within debate were spent on a very lay very trad. circuit. Due to this influence, I tend to prefer slower, much more articulated rounds, but do whatever is your norm. I will adapt to you. My standard speaks are 28 for a normal round with standard mistakes and verbal clutter. Depending on your performance, my awarded speaks will be higher if you exceeded expectations or lower if you didn't reach them.

I firmly dislike the current 'Meta' of debate. It encourages debating Topicality regardless of a violation, erroneous theory, tricks, and of course, abusive outspreading. If your K challenges this meta, I'll def be more interested in it as opposed to the millionth Cap K.

I am comfortable with most strategies, traditional and progressive, but I will (usually) not do the work for you. This depends on the complexity of your argument, so if you plan on running advanced philosophy, progressive, or theory arguments you must fully articulate what it is you are asserting. Specifics are given below:

Tech ———I—————— Truth

⣴⡿⠶⠀⠀⠀⣦⣀⣴⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⡄⠀⠀⣠⣾⠛⣿⠛⣷⠀⠿⣦
⠙⣷⣦⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠀⣴⣿
⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⠿⠋⠁
⠀⣿⣿⣿⠿⡿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢸⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀

_________

VALUE/CRITERION ARTICULATION:

Value/Criterion (V/C) construction is an extremely big deal to me. While they must both stand on their own, removed from each other, their function in tandem is the crux of your argumentation. This is, naturally, my first evaluation before most other things within the round.

While impacts are a huge voting point, I am always looking for a dynamic and developed framework debate to understand the impacts of the round. Securing V/C FW is just as central to winning the round as securing impacts. No matter how good the impacts you have are, the framing, and perception of them is what sells them.

The value debate is supposed to be abstracted! The material consequences of the value come from its relationship with the criterion and case as a whole. Talk about values more conceptually rather than literally, it makes the debate both more dynamic and interesting!

With all that said. I hate basic values. While they work with most of anything, they're SO MEANINGLESS. Using a more specified value can be challenging to initially find, but the benefits are incredible! The trade off here is that you have to do more work, but I expect that from you! There is an infinite amount of values for you to run, so don't use the safe and simple ones over and over.

Basic Values (These are the worst):

(Human) Life // Morality // Democracy --> :(

Cool Alternatives:

Security // Mercy // Liberalism --> :)

_________

PHILOSOPHY STRATEGY:

• Phil Authors: I love love love philosophy in debate. Using a phil. author/theory alongside V/C framework will make it substantially stronger. I am most familiar with Locke (Second Treatise), Nietzsche (Beyond Good & Evil), Hobbes (Leviathan), Rawls (Theory of Justice), Mills (On Liberty), Rousseau (The Social Contract), and Kant (Cat. Imp./ Barebones Metaphysics), but run whatever you've got. BE SPECIFIC WITH YOUR CHOSEN PHILOSOPHY. If you’re using a specific philosophy to frame your case I expect you to both know the author and which version of their work pertains most directly to your case. Examples are given below:

E.X. 1.) Social Contract:

—> Default to Locke for Social Liberty / Property Rights / Materiality

—> Default to Hobbes for Human Life / Security / Basic Natural Law

—> Default to Rousseau for Human Worth / Intrapersonal Morality

ᓚᘏᗢ

E.X. 2.) Utilitarianism:

—> Default to Mills for Rule Util. (Legal Utility / Moral Rule)

—> Default to Bentham for Act Util. (Basic Social Utility / Maximizing Expected Well-Being)

_________

PROGRESSIVE STRATEGY:

• Ks in LD: I’m cool with Ks, especially wacky ones, but please please please have a good FW/UQ and a decent alt. The most important part of selling a K to me is to make it apply both to the resolution and the squo (or maybe even myself!). Get me interested, but don’t be nonsensical. ฅ^o ﻌ o^ฅ

• K Affs in LD: Much of the above applies, but you must must must establish why punting the topic is justified, or at least why you don't feel comfortable defending it.

• CPs/Solvency Alternatives: I’m cool with CPs, just adhere closely to the resolution and clearly define/assert what it means for both sides (have solvency lmao). Topic specific PICs usually work best, and yes PICs are cool, but only if they have reason behind them. Don't be abusive with it, Example: (We do the Aff in all states except the third Federated State of Micronesia until 3:47 P.M. on August 1st, 2025)

• Plans in LD: Not a fan, I'm not sure why you'd want to limit yourself more than the resolution already does, but run what you have and be as simple as possible. I haven’t seen these very often so keep it basic. You're playing a dangerous game with fiat especially in LD where the brightline for fiat is so obscured, so make sure you defend that you actually can* do whatever your plan may be.

• Conditionality: Condo by itself is cool, and I'm 100% chill with you having one or multiple conditional advocacies but remember that your opponent can and will make offense on them. Just kicking out of your side of a DA/K/CP doesn't mean your opponent can't get turns and garner offense off of them. This does not reflect my view on the T-sheet.

_________

TOPICALITY/THEORY STRATEGY:

I was never that deep of a T debater, but with that said I'm big big big on reasonability. More on this below...

Reasonability ———I————— Competing-Interpretations

• T IS (usually) A PRIOR QUESTION. We need to understand the game before we can debate within it, so naturally it has to be the very first evaluation. However this becomes obscured when arguing a K. If you go for T in a situation like this, make sure you secure that its evaluation is prior to that of the K, if not, your opponent might win it, and the K itself would presuppose the T sheet as a whole. ^•ﻌ•^
• T IS (usually) NOT CONDITIONAL. I differ from many others on this point. A team is either topical or they're not. If you lose or kick out of T it will look very bad for my evaluation of you after the round. Don't make me flow a whole separate T sheet just because you wanted another argument on the flow. With the exception of specific circumstances, if you open up the T debate I expect you to go for it, at least in some capacity.

╱|、
(•˕ • 7
|、⁻〵ノ)
じしˍ,)ノ

_________

MISCELLANEOUS STRATEGY:

• PLEASE CLASH
• PLEASE SIGNPOST
• PLEASE WEIGH IMPACTS // TERMINALIZE THEM

• Don't card dump in the NR - not cool /ᐠ - ˕ -マ Ⳋ
• CX is binding
• I don’t care where you look during CX lol.
• Clarifications during preptime are cool. It's not binding, but be truthful with your responses
• I don’t care where you speak, as long as I can hear you.
• ᨐᵉᵒʷ
• I will most likely be timing, but it’s smart to time yourself (duh) and your opponent (keep them honest)
• Tricks: Really not a fan. Tricks abuse techy debate, which all debate SHOULDbe adapting to.
• Debate is a very stressful activity. Be kind and friendly to everyone no matter what happens within the round.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

My ballot is not a reflection of your skill or intelligence, it is merely a single decision within a single round. Use this to your advantage and learn from every single win or loss the very best you can!

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣠⣤⣤⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⢼⣿⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⣾⣷⠀⠀⢿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠈⠋⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠙⠋⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢀⣀⣀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⣿⣷⣦⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⠤⢤⣤⡄
⠈⠉⠉⢉⣙⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⣀⣀⣀⡀⠀
⠐⠚⠋⠉⢀⣬⡿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣥⣀⡀⠈⠀⠈⠛
⠀⠀⠴⠚⠉⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠢⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

CLASH

Make sure you signpost arguments

Overall, I would rather you do you and I will flow it.

Per state rules, I believe teams should follow the set standards of formality. This includes, but is not limited to, maintaining a timely debate, not facing the opposing speakers and refraining from any implication of perceived abuse towards another speaker. Eye contact and speeches should be directed toward the judge only. Additionally, a copy of a team's case or citation cards must be presented to the opposing team upon request. Rapid fire delivery that inhibits effective communication will be penalized. In terms of Topicality, I believe in a tabula rasa approach, and feel that there is room to allow some deviation from original language, and provide metaphorical examples to support a case, within reason. Proof that the affirmative's plan is not in line the with the resolution will be held to a high standard.

Tab judge (I.E. I will not connect the dots for you). Any and all arguments need to have offense behind them for them to be counted Stock issues, DA's, CP's, are all good. Theory and K's I will listen to and weigh as long as they are not being run just to run. This is a speaking event and not a speed reading event is my take on speed in a debate round. Meaning, if it is not on my flow, it does not exist in the debate. I do not like new off-case arguments in the 2 NC unless the affirmative opens the door.

In CX debate I'm as basic as a stock issues judge can get, not much to it. In LD I wouldn't say I necessarily have an exact paradigm, so surprise me. One thing I always look for though is clash; clash I what makes a debate entertaining in my eyes, and as such carries huge weight. You win the clash debate, you just might win the whole round.