Panjwani,+Nabil

Nabil Panjwani William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student Robert E. Lee High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear.

Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep.

Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want.

Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.

Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.

Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.

L/D The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but at the very least run a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate...it's that simple. That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or I'm not gonna buy what's inconsistent to your on case. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your sides burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms and theory nor will I care how many voters you decide to put out there; I'm not dumb, I can flow, just make the argument clear enough to understand and tag it. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one. Logical Analysis/Reasoning > Philosophy > Empirics > Isolation Tactics

C-X I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill your inherent burdens. Make an attempt to set up stock issues properly; it's fine if you don't, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive in some manner. Have a cogent storyline that keeps to consistent stance or it's going to be difficult to know what to vote off of, most of your disads I can imagine will fit with your on case anyways so it's not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep. It helps to tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important; there's so much content to evaluate and it makes the decision easier if I knew where your direction was going. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring.

PF Go for the big picture. It's Ted Turner Debate. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out of it; call crossfire by its name, it's not cross-examination. No Kritiks and No Plans, just straight argumentation. I don't want to hear a definition debate; if your opponent is abusing framer's intent, call them out on it and substantiate it so you can get more than my ballot. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over Cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. I will not accept flex prep. I will down you for spreading. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be (not the show Crossfire) and you've fit my paradigm.

You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.

Updated 09/30/2016