Shivji,+Aabid


 * Name: Aabid Shivji**
 * Affiliation:**
 * **Colleyville Heritage High School, Colleyville, TX**
 * **Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX**

5 General Things about how I see debate before I start on event specific paradigms:

1) I see framework as the most vital layer of the debate, and 2) For a good extension, I require a claim, warrant, and impact reiterated, otherwise I don't think the argument was extended sufficiently. 3) I'm not going to make being nice in round a paradigmatic thing, but please don't be an outright jerk. It's just disrespectful and rude. If a debater is treating you poorly, fire back, because nobody deserves that kind of treatment in round. 4) It's cliché, but have fun debating! This is an activity you're a part of because you enjoy it (probably), so at least try to have a good time! 5) I will stop prep when the flash drive leaves your computer, if you're flashing something (just throwing that one in there). I'd actually probably just prefer if y'all emailed speech docs, it seems easier to me (no, I don't wanna be on the email chain).

Other than that, see below. I judge LD, PF, and CX, so this paradigm is in 3 parts. Go to your event to see that paradigm.

__**LD**__ //Speaking// Go as fast as you want, but I have a pretty high threshold for clarity. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll indicate verbally with either a "Clear!" or a "Slow down," sometimes even a "Louder." I'll dock speaks if I have to prompt you more than once. Everybody starts at a 30, and each speaking error or obvious strategic misstep will take you down from that. Some extremely offensive comments may hurt your points significantly as well. Also, if you're going through a list of analytic arguments, slow down or give me pen/typing time so that I don't miss any of them, on the off chance that you decide to extend one of them later. //Framework// I don't default to framework being a voting issue. If you win that your role of the ballot/judge/debate space is true, that doesn't mean you win the round unless you win offense under that interpretation of the ballot/judge/debate space as well. Similarly, winning that your standard is good won't win the round for you either unless you're winning offense back to it. I like to see burden structures worked into this layer of the debate, but I don't require a specific form/structure of "framework" as long as debaters tell me what types of impacts matter and how I weigh those impacts. That being said, I really do enjoy these debates. //"Voters"// You need to do the weighing for me in round. If I have to do work for someone to win the debate, both of you have done something wrong. I've found that debaters are really bad at remembering to do weighing in debates, so please make sure to take care of that.Therefore, impact calculus is essential, but don't try to do that against oppression impacts (To be clear, don't say something is worse than oppression, please make other comparisons that aren't offensive). Saying things like "productivity outweighs gender violence" will do nothing but kill your speaks. //Argument preference// I don't really care if you run a plan, traditional case, kritik, or anything else, but just do it well. Make sure all of your arguments have all of their parts, even if they aren't necessarily labeled. That being said, I tend to enjoy **good** critical debates better than other debates. //The K (aff/neg)// If you read that last part of the paradigm, you're probably asking "what counts as a good kritikal debate?" If you're going to read the K in front of me, take some time at the end of your written speech file to slow down and explain what the K says to everybody in the room. Not enough debaters make a point of ensuring that the judge and their opponent actually understand the argument that they just read. Be willing to explain, and I'll be a lot happier. Also, don't assume I've read the lit that you read because I probably haven't. //Theory/Topicality// I don't require shell format for these arguments, but I do require that you tell me how somebody is being abusive/nontopical, and what the effects of that abuse or infringement of topicality are. If you have to use these arguments strategically, I guess I can be okay with that, but I'd prefer T or theory to stay out of the debate when they aren't needed because I find that these debates usually get super messy and are often extremely hard to resolve. Don't set yourself up for a bad decision, make sure that you (and not me) is the one that's sifting through this layer to break it down in round.

If you have questions about anything, I'm more than willing to answer them before the round starts. Happy preffing/striking!

__**PF**__ //Framework// This isn't a voting issue. If you win that your interpretation for how we should debate the topic is correct, that doesn't mean you win the debate, you have to win arguments linking back that prove you meet your interpretation. I like seeing burden structures in this layer of the debate, but again, winning your burden structure is correct means nothing if the other team meets your burden. That being said, I really do enjoy these debates. //Evidence comparison// I find these debates are usually quite good. However, sometimes these debates take over other discussions about the topic. Evidence comparison is a good strategy, but don't forget to make defensive arguments and turns. //K Debate// If you're going to read the K in front of me, take some time at the end of your written speech file to slow down and explain what the K says to everybody in the room. Not enough kritikal debaters make a point of making sure that the judge and their opponent actually understand the argument that they just read. Be willing to explain, and I'll be a lot happier. Also, don't assume I've read the lit that you read because I probably haven't..

If you have questions about anything, I'm more than willing to answer them before the round starts. Happy preffing/striking!

__**CX**__ //Framework// Not a voting issue- you still have to win offense back to framing issues to prove you best achieve the way you interpret the debate. That being said, I really do enjoy these debates. //Speaking// Go as fast as you want, but I have a pretty high threshold for clarity. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll indicate verbally with either a "Clear!" or a "Slow down." I'll dock speak if I have to prompt you more than once. Everybody starts at a 30, and each speaking error or obvious strategic misstep will take you down from that. Saying something offensive will hurt your speaks significantly. Also, if you're going through a list of analytic arguments, slow down or give me pen/typing time so that I don't miss any of them, on the off chance that you decide to extend one of them later. //Argument preference// I don't care what you run, as long as you run it well. Make sure all of your arguments have all of their parts, even if they aren't necessarily labeled. That being said, I tend to enjoy **good** kritikal debates better than other debates. //The K (aff/neg)// If you read that last part of the paradigm, you're probably asking "what counts as a good kritikal debate?" If you're going to read the K in front of me, take some time at the end of your written speech file to slow down and explain what the K says to everybody in the room. Not enough kritikal debaters make a point of making sure that the judge and their opponent actually understand the argument that they just read. Be willing to explain, and I'll be a lot happier. Also, don't assume I've read the lit that you read because I probably haven't. //Theory/Topicality// I don't require shell format for these arguments, but I do require that you tell me how somebody is being abusive/nontopical, and what the effects of that abuse or infringement of topicality are. If you have to use these arguments strategically, I guess I can be okay with that, but try to keep it to just one shell in the debate, because the more shells there are, the more confusing and muddled the debates become. Don't set yourself up for a bad decision.

If you have questions about anything, I'm more than willing to answer them before the round starts. Happy preffing/striking!