Paradigm

Eshan Ahmad
Lake Highland Prep

TLDR: First Year Out, Competed at Lake Highland under AS mainly(10 bids) and now serve as an adjunct coach there, a basic tech, tech > truth, eval most stuff if well warranted. Read some of the bold; it might be important!

Please try and create a speech drop for doc sharing before the round, but if not include these emails on the chain: ahmadeshan04@gmail.com AND lakehighlandpfdocs@gmail.com

ANALYTICS ARE GAS--- DO THEM WELL AND GET GOOD SPEAKS

Public Forum:

Update: Its kinda frustrating how the state of pf has turned to just reading straight docs and not thinking about arguments critically at all. If you truly critically think in rounds, give back half speeches actually off the flow, you will be rewarded with good speaks!

How I evaluate rounds: First, I look to who is winning the weighing debate; if there is a weighing mechanism that is extended properly and comparative, it forces me to evaluate that offensive argument first. From there, I evaluate whether that offensive argument is extended properly; this should include the link, internal link, and impact at the bare minimum. Then, I look to see whether there are any responses to the offensive argument; if there are responses, I hope you engage with the warrant of the response and respond to it, and not just extend case evidence. I find myself calling a lot of debates washes simply because each team will just repeat responses from rebuttal and summary but not engage with the response itself. Thus, if I find that you are winning the weighing, case/argument, and extending properly, you should easily win my ballot.

Update/Thoughts on Weighing Debates here too: I think defense implication has become heavily underutilized and it feels like every team just moots the front half of the debate to have full weighing debates in the backhalf. I am very receptive to you going for turns/defense as terminal, which kicks them out of weighing, etc. Tbh it just feels kind of weird because as a debater, my partner and I used to go for defense to kick weighing like almost every round, so I'm down for you to do that too.

Some thoughts on case instruction/extrapolation: I'm not a fan of "hidden links" that are absurdly extrapolated from like two highlighted words of a card. I have a high threshold for voting for this type of strategy blown up in summary, that does not mean I don't think hidden links etc. are not strategic. It just has to be based on good evidence and at least implicated somewhat in a tagline during constructive.

If I am on a panel with two lays, you can dismiss some of my thoughts. Adapt to the lays more than to me. Paraphrased cases and allat are chill.

Flow: I think this is kinda important to include, but for case and rebuttal, I really only flow tags of arguments so please make sure that you slow down on tags!

Speed: I am fine with speed. Just please slow down on analytics / tags.

Framing: Love and rlly cool, did alot of framing debate in highschool and dabbled in some phil framing

Weighing: Please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal makes everyone's jobs easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

Prog: I think if you are competing in the varsity division of any national tournament you should be prepared to debate a shell or K.

Theory: Debated theory a lot in HS, comfortable evaluating, make sure to weigh standards, that's where most of my theory decisions are made.

K’s: Honestly I don't know how great I'd be at evaluating the K. I think it becomes super muddled in pf rounds and don't know how allowed some alts are. I debated a few in highschool though including set col, cap, and virilio. If it's complicated, please explain it well.

T: please go for T more. So many PF teams get away with abusive things because of their interp of the resolution.

Evidence: I will not read ev unless explicitly told to evaluate evidence.

Presumption: I presume the first speaking team. However, if there is another warrant read in the round, I will evaluate that first.

If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, Islamophobic, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

LD:

Update: Judged UKSO and I’m kinda vibing, I think I’m more capable to judge these debates than I thought I was. Here’s a new pref sheet:

Policy- I mean cmon I’m a pfer after all and I’ll be most comprehensible in these debates. I do think that sometimes the counterplan debate gets a little muddled, I want clear explanation of the cp in the back half and how it solves the aff.
Theory- did a lot in pf and it seems similar in LD. I think some people treated me as a dud when it came to this then didn’t read any paradigm issues or a DTD so like what am I supposed to do then…
K Neg- I’m honestly fine with voting up the K as long as there’s clear articulation of the link and ToP in the 2NR. Ie spending 6 minutes on baudrillard would be a good idea if u want me to up the K.

K aff- suprisingly I had a few of these read on me, I voted some up, some down. The main thing is if ur running the K aff you have to be REALLY good at explaining why the ballot is key and WHY SSD does not solve. I’ve become receptive to the TVA and SSD in scenarios where the AFF has just not been able to explain why this ballot matters in context of the lit they r reading
phil- I had Kant read on me and think I handled it decently well, I did a lot of fw debates in hs so I don’t think I’m a complete dud when it comes to this but I need clear articulation of the fw im the back half and how it operates plus very good implication in the fw v fw debate.
trix- nah
I also would like to add that I think I reward great round vision the most, ie. the 2NR just being a simple collapse is something I'll appreciate a lot because it leads to better, comparative weighing and better depth in the debate which is a good thing.

For both events: SLOW DOWN when you are switching sheets, ie going from the fw page to the ROB-spec page, give the judge a second to go where you are.

DISTINGUISH your tags and body of cards, use inflection, slow down, just make it clear.

. Everything above still applies for LD, I have some knowledge of LD Debates/ have seen lowkey alot of them because some of my best friends in HS, Prateek, Harris, Wali, did LD.