If you have any questions, please email me - paulmbanks at gmail.

I did policy debate at Harvard for several years, ending in 2016. I study the history of science. I don't know much about this year's high school topic. I have debated on both sides of the 'topicality/framework' debate in college and I went for a diverse set of arguments on the negative. 

I have few strong predispositions; all of them can be changed with an argument. The only non-negotiable is that I'll protect the 2NR. I read very few cards when deciding most debates and they rarely figure prominently in my decision. I think a lot about the debate as it is progressing.  I always take several minutes after I decide to think about my decision and try to argue with myself against it, using every argument in the likely-losing team's final rebuttal.  

Impacting arguments is the most important thing to do. I don't like having to fill in the blanks and sort out what it means for me to, say, adopt some particular perspective when judging a debate. If I should be a policymaker, what should I prioritize? Often teams assume that winning one argument (such as "the judge should be a policymaker") implies another thing (such as "the judge should only care about geopolitical consequences").  That explains how I think about "dropped arguments" and "concessions" as well.  I'm very good for teams that understand which claims the other team is winning and construct a coherent ballot assuming those claims are somewhat true.

I will not follow along with speech documents. I care about evidence and expertise, but only insofar as it's in your speeches.

I would like to be on the email chain, my email is fatoubbarrie1@gmail.com

Always impact calc

Policy

Do your best :)

High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity.

I am fine with spread as long as it is comprehensible.

LD/PF/Parli/etc.

Do your best :)

Pronouns: she/her

Hi! I am a rising sophomore at UPenn majoring in English, with minors in Design, and in Consumer Psychology in the Wharton School. In high school I was team captain of the public forum debate team, and as a debater, I've debated for three years.

General Stuff:

1. Debate is an educational space. If you need any accommodations, I will try my best to honor them to the best of my ability.

2. Signpost and slow down when reading cards and complicated arguments.

Specific Preferences for PF:

1. Spreading is not encouraged, but if you must, go about 60 percent of your maximum speed. Please make sure you articulate your main contentions throughout, and emphasize as much as possible so I don't miss anything when I write your ballot.

2. Final focus is something I take very seriously as a former second speaker. If you don't weigh your points, I will take that into consideration when I am writing your ballot and assigning speaker points.

3. Avoid off-time roadmaps if possible. They are a waste of time and often do not add anything to the round. I will not take off points, but I find that clear and consistent signposting does the job.

4. I generally don't flow crossfires. It is good practice to carry your responses for offense and defense in later speeches.

5. Did I mention you should weigh? WEIGH!

I have been involved in competative debate for 9 years. I am a "flow" judge, in that A) I can and will flow and B) will vote off the flow. I am comfortable with speed, but prefer clarity if there is a choice between the two. I want to see warranted arguments (I won't assume something is true if you can't explain WHY it is true, and will prefer warranted arguments over unwarranted arguments). I also want to see clear impacts and weighing -- just because an argument is true doesn't mean that it matters. I think good debaters recognize that they don't have to win EVERY argument to win a round, they just have to win the arguments that matter (and accordingly will tell me which arguments matter most and why). Cross-examination is not a time for reading evidence or monologuing. If a team calls for evidence, no one should be prepping while the card is found. I GREATLY dislike misusing/misrepresenting evidence and have no tolerance for questionable ethics in this activity -- this is first and foremost an educational experience, and as such I expect that if you're using evidence you are not misrepresenting the author's conclusions and you will be able to produce the evidence if requested. I think the best and most productive debates are the ones in which debaters are friendly and having fun.