Hi, I'm Fabiha (she/her)! I'm a senior at Pennsbury High School. I mainly do policy, but I also have experience in LD, PF, extemp debate, BQ, and congress. It's fine if you don't like your opponents, but don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. Speaker points will be docked!

All in all, have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round.

Add me to the email chain: fabihaaafaf@gmail.com

LD:

• I love a good framework debate. Still, I could still vote for a debater even if they lose on framework.

• Framing the ballot and clear voters go a long way

• Signpost and give an off-time roadmap

• Have a clear link chain: claim, warrant, impact

• Emphasis on the warrants: card extensions > baseless analytics

• If you're winning on the flow, you're probably winning!!

• I'm cool with CPs and Ks. I'm a policy debater, but I'm not familiar with circuit LD arguments, so over-explain.

• Not a big fan of disclosure theory

• A little speed is fine as long as you stay coherent. If you're spreading, please start an email chain.

• Tech > truth

PF:

• All of the things from above apply here

Hey!
I'm a junior in high school, who loves speech & debate :). I've been competing in this activity since the beginning of high school. My main event is Congressional Debate, competing at the local district, states, and national level. I've additionally completed in other debate events, predominantly in Big Question Debate and Extemp Debate, and both the local and national level.

I value respectful and factual debating. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway- don't interrupt or talk over your opponents during any part of the debate. I prefer coherent and clear speeches over speeches that are fast and attempt to fit in as many words as possible in the allocated time. I tend to reject false "facts", please make sure that your evidence is true and factually correct. Keep your arguments straightforward, and if you can focus on one central argument and really support it throughout the entire debate, that will serve you better than half-supporting several different arguments.

Equity is the most important thing in an event. Discrimination of ANY SORT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN A WAY SHAPE OR FORM!

Congress:

Congress is HANDS DOWN my favorite event!

- Presence-Your presence in the round will have an impact on where I rank you. A common misconception that I want to correct here: Presence is NOT being the most involved with setting the docket, taking splits, or being the person who makes every motion. Presence is your round relevance: This really boils down to the impact you make on the round; there should be no way that I walk out of the round and ask myself"What did this person bring to the round".Quite simply, if I feel as though you did not add on to the round or have significance you will be dropped.

- Argumentation- Make arguments that WIN the round. I do not want to hear any speech after the author/sponsor that is just making one-off claim/warrant/impacts, BE RESPONSIVE AND INTERACTIVE. This is not to say that you should not have offense; a good speech should have offense that it also inherently responsive in that you are bringing a net-harm/positive to your side but also disproving the other side. I dislike arguments that are purely defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.).Biggest thing for me argumentatively:I HEAVILY dislike when debaters 'card-spam' or solely rely on evidence without providing any logical warranting for their argument.

• Simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

- Speaking/Delivery- I will keep this very short because I want to know you and your personal style, not what you think will get my 1. Couple things to avoid are being excessively fast/spreading, being monotone, and yelling. I really enjoy a well-placed joke, be funny and have fun with your AGDs/conclusions. Stay professional but be entertaining and light-hearted.

- Presiding Officers -It is INCREDIBLY rare that I rank a presiding officer 1st - this does not mean impossible, do not be dissuaded. Generally, a presiding officer will land anywhere from 3-7, which can be altered depending on the break. If you want to contend for my one: be ultra efficient, be assertive (NOT RUDE), and be concise (I will appreciate you more if you speak as minimally as possible). Being completely honest, the only way this really happens is if you are stellar or if the round is generally rough. If nobody in the chamber wants to PO and you genuinely do it for the sake of the chamber, I will understand and probably reward you. Making a mistake will not get you dropped depending on how you handle them, please be honest about it and move on instead of telling a bold-faced lie. The biggest thing that will make me drop a presiding officer - dropping someone (recency-wise). I have enough knowledge of presiding and this event to know when it is being done and I have ZERO tolerance for it - be equitable.

- Flipping-I love a balanced debate, so I reward people who flip. There is a caveat here that is fairly important: don't give a bad speech. Flipping will not automatically get you my 1, I still want to hear a good speech. In other words, don't give a terrible speech "for the sake of the debate." You will get points for flipping if your speech is good though.

- Weighing -I'm a fan of weighing at any point in the round where it makes sense to do so, don't just leave this to the crystallization speech if you can fit it in earlier. The best debaters can weigh without using debate jargon, but I'll be happy with any weighing.

• Refutation-Don't just tell me that someone is wrong, tell me why they're wrong and explain why you're right. Also, don't just namedrop a bunch of people and say they're all wrong. Either group their arguments or take them one by one.

Debate

I HATE it when a debate turns on yo a full out war. I know how it feels like to get frustrated in round, but please show respect to yourself and your competitors. My biggest thing is that I need to be able to understand what you're saying. I STRONGLY DISLIKE SPREADING!!!

UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

PF Judge

I like a good, clean debate with clash and coherent reasoning and logic.

Don’t spread (It’s my biggest pet peeve)

Speak clearly and slowly, and LOUDLY

If you are asking for evidence from the other team; make sure to bring it up don’t ask for evidence just for the sake of it.

Make sure you weigh in summary and final focus, I choose the winner based on overall consistency through the round and whichever team carries and extends their arguments throughout the whole round. Logic and coherent reasoning are super important.

Don’t just say “I have a card” explain to me the significance of it

Cross-ex should be civilized

Good luck :)

For some background I'm a debater in eastern PA, and I'm very excited to judge.

Lincoln Douglas-I'm most experienced in LD doing it myself, and I prefer traditional arguments. Any values and value criterion are fine as long as it can be substantiated by your case. Make sure to be stern, but respectful during CX.

Public Forum-I've done PF a few times, and I'm fine with most arguments and frameworks. I prefer arguments that take on the major points of a case rather than having to go over every single card (quality over quantity). During CX make sure to ask questions rather than simply rebutting your opponents.

Good Luck!