Butt,+Bilal

Background: I competed in Public Forum mostly throughout high school with sprinkles of LD here and there. I have been judging on the circuit for the past two years now so am pretty familiar with most trends on the national circuit.

LD Paradigm:

I am pleased to evaluate any sort of advocacy that you feel compelled to put forward. As long as you can prove your side to be more true as a general principle, you win the ballot.

Specifics:

Speed: I like to think I am pretty comfortable with speed. If you are going too fast for me I will not hesitate to say "CLEAR." If even then you do not slow down, I wont necessarily drop you but I will obviously be incapable of evaluating arguments I did not hear. I am a big advocate of flashing cases/cards to better analyze all arguments so if that is something you are willing to do, it will be beneficial for my evaluation.

Theory: I think if theory is done well, it can spark interesting conversations about the nature of this activity and why we debate. I think theory should be used as a last resort personally, but I am not opposed to anyone running theory whenever. In order to win, you must outline where abuse has occurred under the scope of their interpretation. Just because your opponent doesnt know how to respond to your theory does not necessarily mean you win the round. I will evaluate your theory based on how it translates to abuse for me if this occurs. This is contingent on your ability to articulate your theory in front of me and if I buy that abuse has actually occurred in the round.

Evidence: This is fundamentally important in LD even though some people believe otherwise. WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS. Just saying something is bad does not make it bad. In order to evaluate arguments, your opponent needs to know how you are substantiating it. A hard argument to follow and respond to is not necessarily a good one I wont call for cards unless I see apparent misuse of evidence.

Kritk: These are best implemented when you identify the harmful assumptions that are present in your opponents advocacy and providing a clear substantive alternative. I expect a kritik to at least somewhat follow the format: framework, link, impact and alternative. Most of the best kriitks spend majority of time in the NC explaining thoroughly.

Any more questions I will be pleased to answer in round.