Khalil,Mohamed

Katy Taylor 2012-2016 University of Houston 2020’ Conflicts: Katy Taylor Last Updated: 9/11/2017


 * Tldr; You do you. I won't vote on anything I can't explain to the other team, meaning all arguments should be constructed out of a claim, warrant, and impact. I think that sets a reasonable standard for debaters to meet. **
 * Y **** es email chain: momoak.818@gmail.com **


 * General: ** Debate is a game, but that doesn't mean that the activity can't have some external value to it. That being said, I believe in disclosing all prior ideological biases I have before judging, and I’ll attempt to do so in this wiki. Ideological bias is inevitable in debate, however I’ll attempt to remain as neutral as possible when judging. Generally, Tech > Truth.

__ **What do you like to hear?** __ – I’m open to any argument as long as it's not morally repugnant (racism good). My favorite debates to judge are ones with specificity. Specific well-thought out strategies will reflect in your perception and your speaker points. Let me be clear, I do no discourage reading “generic strategies”, when well executed those can be just as effective and I understand the benefit of reading such strategies. Don't let any preconceived notions of what arguments you think I like base your strategy in a debate. Doing whatever you're good at will result in the best outcome when I'm judging.


 * __Topic__ ** __ **Knowledge??** __ - Moderate to good - I currently coach for Katy Taylor and have been active in their argument preparation/cutting for the education topic.


 * Specifics: **

__ **Topicality** __ – T debates are about competing visions on the topic, and the 2nr + 2ar should compare which topic is better. This is best done through some weighing mechanism introduced by either side. Teams should implicate their version of the topic through some sort of case list. Standards should be more then vacuous terms like “limits”, “fairness”, and “predictability”. Absent a reason why those things are good, it becomes hard to evaluate T debates. Don’t assume I understand the intricacies of the resolution’s terminology. Reasonability should be contextualized and not a blip “good is good enough” claim.

__ **Framework** __ – Similar to T, Framework is a question of competing visions of debate. I prefer aff's that have some relationship to the topic, but I will not automatically reject anti-topical affs without a well impacted 2nr. Terminal impacts are needed to win, just saying “destroys fairness” is vacuous and doesn’t explain why fairness is important. I am partial to fairness and argument testing impacts on the negative and pedagogy/inaccessibility arguments on the affirmative. Topical versions of the aff are great, I would appreciate if the block explicitly stated what the TVA is, instead of asserting there is one. I most receptive to state engagement arguments when they're explained as a heuristic individuals can use, and also appreciate it when state engagement arguments are contextualized to the topic/aff.

__ **Critiques** __ – Critique debate done well can be very enjoyable to judge, however the opposite is also true. K debates become frustrating to judge when I'm left with a bunch of different arguments but little interaction between them. That being said, I think there are several key components every winning K 2nr should have: 1) links that turn the case 2) An external impact 3) A well explained alternative that resolves the links and the case. I believe the framework debate is underutilized by the negative, usually these debates end up somewhere in the middle and factor very little into decisions. Persuasive link analysis should be contextualized to the aff and supported by quotes from aff evidence/references to moments in cross x. There's a growing tendency of negative team's reading external impacts, but not explaining the internal links to those things. I think this can best be avoided by explaining the impact to the K in the context of your link arguments, that's the best way to guarantee argument clarity. I am familiar with a majority of critiques read. If you're reading something a bit obscure some explanation of the terminology used somewhere in the debate will be appreciated.

__ **K Affs** __ – I believe K affs should have some form of method that is clearly defined in the 1ac. The 2ac, 1ar, and 2ar should crystalize the method provided by the aff, then contextualize how it resolves your offense. This will help in comparing the method/offense of the aff vs the strategy of the negative. I believe teams should have some tie to the topic, but can be persuaded otherwise. Negative teams should capitalize on holes in aff explanation, I am fully willing to vote negative on presumption if the negative has proven an insufficiency/contradiction within the aff.

__ **Disadvantages** __ – Read them, go for them, make sure they turn the case. The more specific the disadvantage the better. Impact and evidence comparison is great and you should do it. Specific link analysis is also appreciated. I enjoy when affirmative's find holes in the DA's scenarios and exploit them. 2ac's should have a good combination of offense and defense, otherwise it becomes easy for the negative to exploit deficiencies in 2ac coverage.

__ **Counterplans** __ – The more specific the better, well researched counter plans from affirmative evidence show the effort put into them, and will be rewarded with good speaker points if debated well. CP’s should probably have a solvency advocate, but won’t be counted as theoretically illegitimate unless debated out. Slow down on the CP text/planks. PIC’s are cool, but can be bad sometimes, again a debate to be had.

__ **Case** __ – A woefully under debated portion of rounds. I think case defense is essential in any 2nr strategy. An unmitigated risk of case makes try or die/outweighs claims extremely persuasive. Impact turns are also cool, and can be very nuanced.


 * __Theory__ ** - A very technical aspect of debate, I'm fully willing to vote on. Specifically for condo, I generally lean negative on, excluding something preposterous like 4-5+ conditional advocacies. I can be persuaded to vote affirmative in less extreme cases, when the aff is clearly out-teching the negative of nuanced abuse claims that have been impacted. Other theory issues I'm totally in the middle on, and can be persuaded by either side.


 * Speaker Point scale: **
 * <27 ** - You did something super offensive or your speeches were incomprehensible.
 * 27-28 ** - Your argument explanation was lacking, and you need to improve on a technical level (speech organization, line by line, etc.).
 * 28.1-28.5 ** - Average speaks, can improve clarity and argument application.
 * 28.6-28.9 ** - Good, can improve word efficiency, minor speech/clarity issues, and argument contextualization.
 * 29-29.9 ** - Great, efficient + well contextualized speeches, You were very enjoyable to judge