Hefzi,+Hooman

Currently debating parli for UCSD, 3 years of LD for Esperanza High School in Southern California. NPDA Quarterfinalist 2009, nothing impressive in high school.

I haven't judged LD since I graduated (2007) and don't keep up to date with the topic so if there is literature that "everyone knows" spell it out for me.

I'm fine with anything you want to run, I feel that debate is a game and outside of it needing to be "fair" (definition debateable) everything is up to the competetitors, just tell me how to weigh the round and why it should be weighed that way.


 * Topicality**: I'm fine with it. I also don't like it when it's run poorly as a blatant time suck so I'm open to //well-developed// RVIs on the position. Don't run reasonability as a counterstandard, it begs for judge intervention.


 * K**: I like them. Not as well versed in the literature as I should be so if the material is dense make it comprehensible. Intuitively I feel there should be an alternative so if you don't have one explain why that's okay. Explain how the K functions in the round.


 * Performance**: I've run one once, and seen it run once. Make sure I understand what is going on or you'll probably lose me.


 * CP theory**: These were starting to pop up in LD as I was graduating so I'm a bit unsure how they function in the LD world but not biased against them. Generally, I find that people have different interpretations of what various words relating to CP mean so make sure everyone in the room knows what you mean when you throw jargon out.


 * Speed**: I'll yell clear 3 times if it's an issue but I should be fine with however fast you'd like to go. I will call for cards at the end if internal warrants are questioned/argued against.

I don't care if you sit or stand I like good fast debate better than good slow debate but good slow debate better than bad fast debate and will reflect that with speaks. If you have any questions ask.
 * Random**: