Ahsan,+Talha

Hi, I’ve debated for four years at Eagan High School until the winter of 2013 (started on Nukes topic, ended on something else that I can't remember), During my senior year I stopped halfway through the season and decided to do some pf (**biggest mistake ever**).
 * Last updated for Minneapple 2015***

I "coached" at Hopkins high school 2014-2015. I currently is coaching novices at Eagan high school 2015-?. I currently attend Macalester College studying CS and Neuroscience, so I will most likely NOT be covering any of your fancy authors in class. Don't expect me to know who "the famous utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer" is. No I don't read Chomsky. Stop assuming I know who you are talking about.

I competed at midwestern national circuit tournaments often during my sophomore year, and junior year, but was more focused on speech my senior year. As such my accolades in debate are nonexistent. **I was not a particularly good debater,** I’d often go 3-3 at national circuit tournaments.

**I will primarily be judging novice and do not plan on being at most circuit tournaments. Really there's no reason for you to read this unless you plan on seeing if I like to see theory run at a local MN tournament (tl;dr: no). That said, here's the rest of my paradigm:**


 * *Note: I sound really sassy sometimes, and occasionally that's just how I talk, but on certain occasions it's because I've seen stupid stuff like what I'm illustrating before, and so I feel like if it's not common sense for some debaters, it's best to be safe about it.* **

What I like:
 * Clarity
 * **SLOW DOWN DURING TAGS AND AUTHORS. I MEAN GO FROM 60000 WPM TO 15 WPM FOR THESE. I AM NOT GREAT AT FLOWING AUTHORS WHEN THE TAG AND AUTHOR ARE TOGETHER SPITTED OUT IN AROUND 1 SECOND TOTAL. SLOW. DOWN.**
 * Clashing arguments, I don't like random off cases that don't clash with your opponent's arguments just so you can win the round by piling loads of crap on them
 * Good, well developed, internally consistent arguments. That 200 point util block you have that is with 3 good arguments and 197 bad ones? Read the 3, stop wasting my time with everything else
 * **GOOD EXTENSIONS**. I hold that extensions need to have their claim, warrant, and impact, all stated during the extension. I don't need you to explicitly state which one is the claim etc, but the stuff needs to present. If someone walks in the round during the 1AR/2NR and can't figure out what your arguments say off your extensions, then if the ballot is even slightly difficult for me to decide, I'll just drop each of your poor extensions and then decide from there. I have on multiple occasions dropped a debater who seemed to win the flow because their extensions were piss poor
 * a narrative for the round, tell me how everything interacts and give me a story from the AC or NC. I don't want an actual narrative, but a set of events which write the ballot for me. X -> y -> z -> a where a stands for affirm.
 * Good weighing analysis, especially in util debates. Self explanatory here.
 * If you see yourself better than half the crowd at any circuit tournament, please slow down. I can flow better than your parents, but not as well as your just out of high school coach who managed to make it to semis at TOC or something.
 * "out there" positions. Run weird stuff please. As someone who quickly gets tired of stock positions on topics, if you have some weird analysis of the topic from some dude in Russia who finds some relationship between the topic and Agamben's work on political theology or Sartre's love for french food, then go for it. BUT make sure it makes sense, is well constructed, and makes sense to someone who doesn't have an intimate knowledge of whatever you're arguing about before the round. Make it make sense for me, and I won't hesitate to write your ballot. If it does not make sense, don't expect many ballots from me with your name on them for the winner.
 * Topical linking which is concrete in your positions. I'm sorry, I used to be a fan of micropolitical movements with topical links being through metaphor, but I'm done. Don't run that stuff on me, I'm a lazy, old, cranky judge stuck in a college student's body with all the pessimism of the old guy and the laziness of a CS student. I want clear concrete links to the resolution, otherwise I will go out of my way to find a reason to vote for you.
 * Don't be overly abusive. Okay, so sure you have an a priori in there or something else, that's fine. But 4 conditional counterplans, 3 theory shells everyone knows you ran for the sake of running theory, and some weird floating NC that nobody knows how to evaluate? No thanks. Stop.

What I am okay with:
 * Counterplans and plans. so long as they are not conditional, I don't have a problem with them. They need clear texts and all that but I don't have problems voting for them.
 * Kritiks so long as they're not the weird prefiat micropolitical stuff that debaters seem to love right now. Stuff I've been okay with include things like a K focusing on the usage of the term victim, Agamben, Bad Faith, some Nietzsche stuff, kritiks of deontology, and all that razzmatazz. I do hold that Ks need alternatives, the role of the ballot arguments make me less receptive to Ks but I will hear them out. Don't expect me again to vote for you because you ran a K with a role of the ballot argument which I didn't flow because you went too fast.
 * weirder cases including skep and other stuff. Note: make sure you're internally consistent.
 * flex prep is fine if both your opponent and you agree to it.
 * profanity is tolerated. That said, don't make it excessive.

What I am not a big fan of:
 * I am awful at judging the following:
 * theory. I have the capacity to judge theory equivalent to a young child's capacity to understand the Church Turing Thesis
 * multiple plans clashing against each other but nobody wanting to actually talk about the clash
 * poor extensions, again, I have no qualm about ignoring them.
 * prefiat micropolitical movements that you can recycle every single topic by changing the one part where the topic links with another BS argument which we all know is because you're too lazy to cut cards. Yes I get it, some people are underrepresented in the debate community, but that doesn't mean I should vote for them on the spot, and I'm here to listen to people debate about the actual topic. Stop it. Yes, I mean you.
 * Being rude. I will dock speaks.
 * Know the speech times for LD.

What I will dock speaks for:
 * Asking me to disclose speaks. If the round was easy for me to decide in a timely manner (less than 5 minutes) then I'll disclose the winner if needed. If the round takes longer, I'll tell both of you that the disclosure will be on the ballot. If you ask me to disclose speaks, stop it. I'll dock a point for it because really do you need to know if you got a 28 vs a 28.1?
 * Being rude to your opponent or to me. Be civil or deal with a deduction. This will vary from half a speaker point to 10 points depending on the degree.
 * Shaking me hand after the round. Look I get it that you're ingrained to say thanks for judging and all that, but there's no reason to come up to me and shake my hand, disrupting my train of thought. I get that this is silly, but it's a huge pet peeve of mine. Ask yourself how you'd feel about the judge in each of your rounds coming up to you and shaking your hand, thanking you for debating. Stop it. Thanks.
 * Not knowing how the format works. Look I get that memorizing 6-7-4-6-3 is really really hard. But you really should review the rules if you think that after the 2NR is another period of cross ex. If you can't bother to learn the rules of this activity, then I can't be bothered to give you high speaks.

What I will give speaks for:
 * A "Donezo Manifesto" reference in the 2NR or 2AR. If you don't understand the reference then you probably shouldn't make it.
 * Being respectful to both debaters
 * indicating the ability to make arguments during the round instead of reading off the 20 sheets of paper you and your team prepared before the tournament.
 * clarity over speed.
 * Creating an overall narrative for the round. Write the ballot for me and I'll copy whatever you want on the ballot. Refuse to give me that story and it'll be harder for you to get the win.

With that said, feel free to ask any questions before the round.