Asgarian,+Ismael

> Past Policy Debate Experience: 2-3 years for Woonsocket HS in RI > > Current Role: Coach, Rhode Island Urban Debate League with 6 years experience judging in the RIUDL. > > Have fun, have energy, and respect the game! > > General things I look for: > > I am very particular on evidence usage. If you read an evidence card with a tag-line that has little to nothing to do with the card I'll start flowing you less. I also don't require evidence for every argument. If you can make a great and compelling argument with little to no evidence I might vote if the logical reasoning holds. > > What I look for is real-time impacts. I don't like hypothetical impacts with no clear timeline, I want to know how much time I have to live and who is gonna kill me first; or at least inconvenience me sooner. > > You should always tell me how to vote and why so I know exactly where you're coming from. > > General things I don't like: > > I'm not a fan of spreading when it's incoherent. I want both teams to be competitive: this doesn't mean being rude or cocky, and it also doesn't mean being a kiss-ass. I like seeing the competition in the round and don't mind if you aren't smiling at your opponent the whole time. > > I don't like conditional arguments that aren't clearly labeled as such. If you want to kick-out later I need to know that's an option up front. > > I don't like blippy arguments or tag lines. Everything should be clearly explained; especially T/K's/Framework...this especially needs to be clearly defined and justified if you want me to care AT ALL. I hate framework as a filler/time-suck! > > Every extended argument needs a justification attached or I might just ignore your plea to extend. > > Topicality: > > I appreciate the power of T and respect it if used correctly. If a case has shaky T then I expect the Neg to address it. Same goes for Aff if its brought into a round. If used as a time-suck I WON'T weight it as normal. Generally use T against K Aff's and justify your position that T policy debate is more important. > > Kritiks/Performance > > I really do appreciate K's and especially like K Affs, but I need you to make a clear and convincing case. Your own analysis of the K matters more to me than how many people you can quote and how fast you can read those quotes. I need to understand your K to vote on it, but if its done clearly and effectively I really appreciate them and like voting on K's. Same goes for performance K's > > Speaker points: > > Honestly the best speaks go to the most organized and impact oriented debaters. I don't care of you speak beautifully or stutter through the whole speech. If you give me great reasons to vote for you through powerful and time sensitive impact analysis I'll be generous. > > 26- Absolutely horrible > 27- pretty bad > 28- Average > 29- Really great! > 30- I wish I recorded your speeches! > > - I will disclose