Ghodsi,+Sina

I debated for 4 years at Clear Lake HS. I broke at state one year* and was usually pretty close to clearing at TOC tournaments, so that's something I guess. Anyway, a tl;dr version of this is: do whatever you want, be smart, speak somewhat clearly, and I'm happy. If you want a more simple version of my paradigm, see **Rennie Pasquinelli's** judge philosophy. She is the reason I did and did well in debate.

More detailed stuff:

Disads: Impact calculus is a must, sophisticated turns case arguments are an easy way to definitively win the disad debate so do it if you can

Counterplans: I'm cool with most counterplans, but some of the ones that sort of obviously steal the aff without much aff-specific nuance irk me a little (examples include consult, conditions, delay, etc)... This doesn't mean you can't read these arguments, but you better be damn sure that you can theoretically justify them in what I would like to be a rigorous theory debate. Competition is also a must for counterplans. I don't think permutations are advocacies. If the 2ac says 10 perms, that's fine, but that doesnt mean the neg dropping one means its game over... perms don't have to be thoroughly answered by the neg unless the aff has a warrant for why the permutation proves the counterplan isn't competitive.

Kritiks: I'm taking a philosophy course next semester so you could say I'm a K hack. But seriously, I'm cool with kritiks and I found these arguments to be the ones that were most likely to teach me something or make me think about something critically, which is awesome. I would rather you win the kritik debate in some substantive manner on the neg, but I guess you can just go for K tricks or whatever (this type of strategy, like only going for one argument on the entire flow because it was dropped and supposedly means the aff doesn't get their aff, might not be great for your speaks). Turns case arguments are sweet, although "alt solves the aff" usually sounds pretty stupid. Finally, be very clear in your explanation of the thesis of the criticism... I'm not ideologically opposed to voting for super far-left kritiks and other unconventional arguments, but I don't always understand them immediately, so you're going to want to make me understand. I'm not particularly stupid, so I can almost guarantee that if you are a good debater and understand the literature, you'll be able to make me understand what the kritik is about.

Topicality: Anyone who remembers my negative strategies probably thinks of me as "that T guy". I love topicality but only when it's done well. Standards on topicality are impacts. Treat the T debate exactly like a disad debate. Critical thinking, portable skills, topic education, whatever; most T standards make sense to me so go for it but do comparative impact analysis on those standards. If you go for what intuitively seems like a stupid T argument but argue it masterfully, I'm ok with that, but I would prefer that your violation does make some intuitive sense as to why the aff is untopical. Additionally, I don't have much background on the topic and what kind of affs people read, so if you give me a case list explain why that case list makes sense, is good, etc.

Theory: I talked about counterplan theory above, and my thoughts here are similar to the section on topicality. Do comparative analysis w/ both offensive and defensive arguments on both sides, and you have a chance to win theory arguments. I haven't had an intense conditionality debate in a while, but I'm always down for one. Condo is probably the only theory arg that is a voter, but feel free to argue anything else is a voter.

Performance affs/negs: I don't really feel like I should have to have a section for this, because the distinction between performance and non-performance debate is kind of blurry to me. Performance is awesome. Do it. I am sympathetic to framework arguments against affs that don't advocate a plan, but you obviously have to win the flow -- treat it like a T/disad debate and you should be alright on either side. I think there are a lot of viable "aff turns framework" and "framework turns aff" arguments, so do what you gotta do to win the debate. I feel like I'm rambling a little bit but just know that you shouldn't be afraid to perform your 1ac, and you also shouldn't be afraid to go for framework against these affs -- I've won debates on the aff without reading a plan text, and I've won debates on the neg by going for framework against these same types of affs.

Speaker points: I evaluate debaters on how smart they sound and how clear they are. Nothing special here. Debate well, speak well, and you'll get good speaks. 29-30 is usually reserved for the top tier of debaters, but perform really well and you could very well find yourself in this range. You won't get below a 28 unless you are really messy on the flow, drop a lot of stuff, go for really bad arguments, etc. You won't get below a 27 unless you piss me off.

In case anything on this paradigm wasn't clear, I should be a good judge for pretty much anyone. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me stuff before the round, but if you're unsure of whether or not I am ok with a certain argument, just assume that I am.

*All credit goes to Rennie Pasquinelli cuz Gitmo; No credit to Michael Hsu