Rahman,+Ethan

I debated for Barrington High School for four years primarily on the national circuit. Currently I debate NFA-LD for the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

K debaters: 1 LARPers: 1 Theory/ T debaters: 2-3 Tricks: 4-strike Framework debaters: 2-3 (you should be fine as long as it's not too complicated) Generic circuit: 2-3
 * Pref Shortcut:**

//Note:// //I'm an economics major. I'm kind of disappointed in the way people make econ arguments in debate. If you blatantly mis-contextualize or misrepresent the views of any economist I will tank your speaks. Conversely, if you use economics well and in a creative/ interesting way, you can expect high speaks. Bonus points for reading Friedman, Bernanke, Summner, or Beckworth.//
 * Speaker Point Distribution:**
 * 30 || You can break at TOC ||
 * 30 to 29.5 || You can win the tournament ||
 * 29.5 to 28.5 || You can break at the tournament ||
 * 28.5 to 28 || No major flaws, maybe some minor issues ||
 * 28 to 27 || Some major mistakes or you made the round horribly unclear ||
 * 27 and under || Lots of major mistakes or you did something that offended me. ||

**Short:** I consider myself to be pretty tab. I'm fine with any arguments as long as they're properly warranted. If you get me as a judge I have two pieces of advice for you. 1) Be entertaining. I love creative arguments and generally good speaking skills. keep me engaged in the debate. 2) Make me do as little work as possible. If you force me to do weighing for you or you make no attempt at clashing with your opponent's case you can expect lower speaks at a minimum. I'm not the best at flowing speed, but as long as you're clear you should be fine (I will say "clear" 3 times before I just stop flowing). Please please slow down for tags, author names, and any plan/ cp texts.


 * Kritiks: ** I primarily debated Ks in high school. I prefer Ks with actual policy alternatives but I'm cool with anything. I expect to see a ROTB or at least some kind of framework to evaluate the round. Err on the side of over explaining arguments. If you have some sorta wacky kritikal position, I personally love those. I dislike so called "high theory kritiks" but if you must read it, it won't affect my evaluation of the round.

**Policy Arguments:** These types of debates have become my favorite to evaluate. Impact calculus is extremely important to me. I generally speaking prefer that you make weighing arguments in the same speech you bring up the argument in question. For example, if you read a DA in the 1NR, I expect you do weigh between the impacts of the DA and the aff advantages in the 1NR. I will consider any weighing arguments done in the 2NR to be new arguments and therefore I won't evaluate them.

**Theory:** If you like running frivolous theory with several unrelated planks that are super complicated, I may not be the best judge for you. I'll vote on them, but chances are I won't like you very much for it, which may or may not be reflected in speaks. If you're going to run theory, be creative. If I've never heard your interp before, then that's probably a good sign. I like unconventional voters other than fairness or education, as long as they're not just stupid. I default to competing interps. Offensive counter interps require an RVI. Also apparently my definition/ understanding of competing interps and reasonability isn't the same as what some other people think. My understanding of competing interps is that in order to win the theory debate, the person who is defending against theory must explicitly gain offense back to a competing interpretation. Reasonability means that it is possible for the person defending against theory to win off of defensive arguments, so long as they meet some kind of threshold set by the debater.


 * Topicality:** I love a good T debate, and generally think that T debates are of higher quality than most theory debates. I have a slightly higher threshold for RVIs on T. When justifying RVI's, please make arguments that are specific to T. I will find these arguments much more persuasive than generic RVI arguments.


 * Framework:** I was a framework debater in the earlier parts of my career. I'm mostly familiar with Kantian philosophers, but I should be able to evaluate most philosophies as long as it's not super complicated. I think that the risk of your framework being true should factored into the impact calc debate.


 * Tricks/ Spikes:** I strongly dislike this debate style. If you really really must read these types of cases in front of me, you have to go slow and explicitly number each argument.

If you have any questions, the best way to contact me is through facebook. If that doesn't work for you, try emailing me at ethanr2@illinois.edu. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
 * General Notes:**
 * Theory vs K: I think these arguments are hard to evaluate. I'm slightly biased in favor of the K in this debate.
 * Disclosure: I think disclosure is a good practice and I'm willing to vote on disclosure theory.
 * Cross Examination: If you get a dope concession in CX, please indicate that by saying something like "Yo Ethan, that last part was important please remember that during the next speech". That would be greatly helpful.
 * Malthus isn't a real economist.
 * My intellectual hero is Henry George. If you somehow manage to incorporate his work in the debate I will be a very happy individual.