Mohammad,+Ohanna

Barnard College / Columbia University Philosophy / Economics


 * Ks > phil = LARP > (good & strategic) T > (good) other theory > strategic other theory**

I'm one year out of high school, debated LD for Dallastown (PA) for 4 years. Haven't ever judged before, so I may be a little rusty.

General Commentary: In hindsight, I have a very cynical view of the national debate circuit. Most of y'all are very quick to talk about social justice yet //somehow// fail to recognize debate's classism. If you have to spend $3000 each summer to go to a fancy camp to do well at the big tournaments, debate obviously //isn't// accessible. I challenge you to think a little more critically about this situation. I'd love to hear about this in round.

I did fairly well in high school debate and know what I'm talking about though, so don't be too quick to mark me off as a "traditional" judge. **I enjoy hearing fast, intriguing debates.**

Spreading: Totally good with it. I'll like it even more if you email/flash me your case, just so I can cross-reference whatever you're saying. If you're bad at spreading, that's your problem. I'll say clear 3 times.

Ways to get on my bad side:
 * **Unacceptable language** - I don't want to hear any identity epithets unless you are of that identity and using the word with taste and a specific purpose (non black people shouldn't be saying the n word, non women should not be saying the c word, persons without disabilities should not be saying etc...)
 * **Lack of intersectionality** - I don't want to (for example) hear a fem k with no mention of the fact that wocs (esp black women) bear the brunt of discrimination because of the intersection of their race and gender
 * **Appropriation** - I don't want to hear (for example) a black nihilism k from a white person. It's not fair for you to be gaining clout off of the pain of oppressed peoples.
 * **Unfairness** - If a national circuit, camp-trained debater goes into a room and sees they're debating someone with absolutely no exposure to their type of debate, they should excessively slow down and signpost. I don't care if you don't have another case, take out some of your cards. I'm not here to see someone get pummeled at a tournament for not having as much privilege as you. There is no way around this - if you are not sensitive regarding the accessibility of your argumentation I will vote you down. Hopefully, though, this will not be a problem with your judge preferences.

Specific to types of argumentation:

Ks: Love them. I really like hearing about identity and colonialism specifically. Don't want to hear about nonsense. I think that Ks are only really valuable if they talk about educational topics that will actually change the way that we think about debate. Of course they should also be strategic, but I don't want to hear about bullshit just so you can win the round. Try to be clear about what your alternative is. Whatever alt you argue for, please justify it well.

Phil: I definitely know more depth than breadth. I know //a lot// about Foucault, Kant, and Aristotle. If you run them well with me, your speaks will benefit :) . I've been exposed to a lot of philosophy though, so feel free to run anything by me. I will be able to tell if you don't understand what you're reading. No matter what, please be clear about what you're trying to argue. I hate it when people run complicated philosophers and then explain them in a convoluted way that makes it difficult for their opponents to follow along. If you don't act like you know what you're talking about or obscure the meaning of your argument, you won't be very successful.

LARP: Give me lots of facts! A very original plan text that is well justified will make me very happy.

T/Theory: I didn't go to camp //and// I never ran theory much in high school so I'm really not the best judge for this. In terms of T shells, I think that they are a pretty good strat in LD and can be used well, especially in LARP debates. I can evaluate good, sufficiently justified theory well. If you run theory just for the hell of it you're not going to be successful. I default to competing interps. I want to see a very organized shell with clear signposting.

Since i'm from Pennsylvania, **if you don't understand what I'm talking about**: In a traditional debate I want to see good framework clash, and clear/sophisticated argumentation. I really appreciate a long and well justified framework. If you're lazy on the framework debate you won't do very well. If you're both lazy on framework I guess I just generally won't be happy about the round. I love a good traditional round, so have fun!! Just look over my general comments beforehand and you should be good.