Shabanov,+Emil

Hey everyone. I did basically every debate and non-interp speech event except for CX in high school.In round, call me Judge. Or don't.

General:

 * Me:** I'm not going to pretend and say that I'm a tabula rasa judge. It's impossible for me to entirely disconnect my experiences when I enter the round. I'll try to minimize my own biases, but don't expect to get away with "genocide/racism/sexism/bigotry/fascism is good" arguments.

Depending on the day, I might have a super expressive face or be completely stone faced. Don't worry either way. I'll probably shake my head in agreement whenever you are speaking and I understand.


 * Speed:** I can probably keep up with a decent pace, but I'm out of practice with spreading, so be judicious. I also have a hard time hearing in one of my ears, so make sure you're loud enough that I can hear you. Don't yell at me or at your opponent. Be articulate, debate is also a speaking event.

Honestly, though, good debaters should be able to win going at any speed. I prefer if you match down to your opponent, if possible. I will yell "SLOW" __once__. If you do not slow sufficiently (or at all,) you will risk me missing a decent part of your speech and probably some speaker points too.


 * Evidence**: Gotta be legit. Please use real, legitimate sources - not some guy's blog. Obviously, remain judicious and uphold the NSDA and TFA (if applicable) evidence rules. I don't like email chains, don't include me in them. If need be, I'll ask to see cases and cards at the end of the round. Please don't card dump.

If you suspect your opponent is violating evidence rules, __YOU__ need to call them out on it. I'm not gonna do the work if you're not.


 * Presentation:** Make eye contact with me. Be conscientious of your hand gestures, your posture, and your facial expressions, both when you're speaking and when your opponent is.

**LD:**

 * Framework:** Glorious. Traditional LD framework structure is the most fun. Go crazy, I loved all kinds of lesser-known philosophy when I competed, but make sure your arguments have a solid link chain and are really organized. Obviously, //framework is NOT a voter.//

Non-traditional structures are fine. However, unless you give me a solid justification (not blippy), I really have no reason to believe that the role of the ballot comes before framework.


 * Ks:** I really like Ks when they're done well - logically sound, organizationally beautiful, well-defended. Multiple warrants are great. However, if you run a poorly-structured K, or one that is confusing, or requires someone to be familiar with a set of literature that cannot be thoroughly explained in-round, I will be unhappy. Make your alts well-defended and actually //solvent.//

I really like and have had fun running feminist Ks and ecopessism Ks. Of course, that doesn't mean you're not free to go ahead and run other types of Ks. Just make sure they're good.


 * Theory/Topicality**: I'm going to be honest and say that I struggled running this. However, if you choose to run it, have solid line-by-line, show __CLEAR__ abuse. I'll probably gut-check most theory on my own, so stay reasonable. I don't want to have every round I judge collapse immediately to theory. That's boring. If you're aff, I'll grant RVIs.


 * Plans/CPs:** These are fun! Go ahead and run them - but be certain your plan/counterplan has a very solid chain of links. You can be hyper-specific, but be wary that if you violate the spirit of the resolution, I'm going to be very inclined to side with your opponent if they run theory.


 * Miscellanea:**
 * Spikes/tricks are bad. Don't do them.
 * I love monads (of Leibniz) so if, for some reason, your case has something to do with it or you mention it (logically, of course), I'll probably give you a few extra speaker points.
 * My favorite philosopher is Nishida, as well as other philosophers of the Kyoto School. I'm familiar with this corpus of philosophy and will be very sympathetic to arguments structured around these.
 * Trigger warnings are good practice.
 * I will probably gut-check a lot of things if they're not warranted.

PF:
My paradigm here is very simple:
 * Don't spread ridiculously.
 * Don't run Ks or theory.
 * Don't card dump
 * Don't forget to extend your warrants
 * Don't be rude
 * Don't run abusive framework/observations - I will gut-check PF framework very stringently.
 * Don't violate evidence rules

If you have any specific questions, ask me in round.

Speaker Points:
I like the concept of speaker points, because debate is not just clash between ideas, it's also the presentation of those arguments.

For LD, I typically start at 28.7 (or 28.5 or 28 depending on tournament rules) and then go up or down regarding your speaking in the round. Low-point wins are not rare.

For PF, I'll start at 28.5 (or 28) speaker points, and adjust accordingly. Being rude or sexist/racist/homophobic in round will result in a serious drop of points. Be courteous.

Obviously if you have any other questions, ask before round.