Makhoul,+Ghassan

I am a freshman at the University of California at Berkeley. I am a former policy debater from Little Rock Central in Arkansas. In my high school career, I debated for 4 years and I traveled extensively both in and out of state at national tournaments. I also was a lab leader for the Natural State of Arkansas Summer Debate camp 2012. Beyond this program, I have not had much other experience with this year's topic.

I am a little hesitant to say I am a tab judge. Instead, I will do what I found more helpful, and break down my views on each argument. If there is something unclear or something you feel confused about, feel free to ask me.

Topicality - these debates tend to be a bit messy and superficial. Impact analysis is often under utilized within Topicality. Articulate what your (counter)definition means for the topic. Comparative analysis is a must. Please, don't just read blocks off to me, especially if you ultimately go for Topicality.

Disadvantages - This should be relatively straightforward. Try to avoid generics. Make sure you effectively employ impact calculus.

Counterplans - I am fine with most anything you could find. If you have an intricate, multiplank CP text, slow down a bit. Clearly explain why the counterplan solves the aff. Include a net benefit, and you're golden.

Theory - I enjoy a good theory debate. Once again, don't just spurt out your blocks. How I evaluate theory depends on what you say within the round. I am hesitant to call a round on a condo bad argument. Do not ask me to "vote you up" because the other team "abused" you. Frame your violation in terms of the debate, and future debates. Ultimately, it is more compelling, to me, if you utilize the theory debate to mitigate the other team's arguments, such as mooting an alternative.

Kritiks/K affs - I debated a lot of Kritiks throughout my career. So, I am literate in a good portion of critical theory. That being said, I know how poorly Kritiks can be run. Be as specific as you can, especially with the link. Articulate your story clearly to me, and make sure to do more than "this ruins Value to Life" impact analysis. I am very familiar with critical affirmatives. Defend your framework well. I am open to all ideas of what debate should and should not include.

Impacts and arguing in general: I need a way to evaluate arguments. For every argument you make, no matter how boss the card is (or even if the argument was conceded in a previous speech), I need impact analysis. By this, I mean that you should give me concrete explanations of what your arguments mean in the round - contextualize. Saying that the other team dropped your "Role of the Ballot" is not the paradigm I want to evaluate the round with. Arguments are a claim and a warrant.

I'm ok with any speed but I would like for the spread to be clear.

Stay composed in cross examinations. Make me laugh. Don't hide behind your laptop or the podium. And, speak with confidence.