Boussayoud,+Imen


 * __A little about me:__** I debated for Brooklyn Technical High School for around 3 years, and now I'm a junior at Hunter College. I ran primarily K/Performance arguments, but Ill listen to all. I've been judging since the 2014 season.

2016-2017 Season Update
 * Key point: If I don't know what your argument is at the end of the debate I can't vote for it. The burden is on the affirmative to present a clear and direct articulation of case throughout the debate, and if the neg has an alt to do the same thing. This doesnt mean to sacrifice clash and engaging on the flow to spend excess time explaining and repeating your previous speeches. Contextualize your arguments and solvency in ways that allow you to resolve the offense on the flow instead of chasing ink.
 * Don't expect to slide by on tagline extensions without any warrant comparison/impact weighing.
 * Don't add me to the email chain. If I don't know what a specific piece of evidence says at the end of the debate I won't evaluate it. The main situation in which I would really call for a piece of evidence after the debate is if a specific warrant is contested/accusations of mistagging/powertagging are raised, not to 'see how great this piece of evidence is on the question'.
 * At this point I have a good bit of experience judging LD and a fair bit of PF knowledge as well. Regardless of the forum of debate as long as you provide good warrantation and compelling reasons to vote aff/neg the debate should go smoothly.


 * __The 'I know most of you are reading this right before the round or super quickly while trying to pref 200 judges' Philosophy:__**


 * 0- Overview-** Before I get into specifics, what's most important is to DO WHAT YOU'RE GOOD AT. Don't change what your strategy is based on what's in this philosophy if anything just try to improve it. Be comfortable in round and funny, I'm not a scary person.


 * 1- K/Performance teams-** Love them, love to hear them, but know what you're talking about As someone who used it plenty of times, I know what BS sounds like. If you have a great innovative argument or interpretation, I'll be over the moon! If you just read that I like K's and run an old cap file that you have no idea what the literature is, it doesn't look good. Too many teams have been getting away with surface level analysis without ever interacting with the other teams offense. At a certain point in the debate, I get what you do, tell me how it interacts with what the other teams doing.


 * 2- CP/Disad debates**- I enjoy hearing them, as long as you have a smart CP and use it to cut through the other teams offense. However, dont spread through 8 DA's and 3 CP's- I dislike the throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks strategy. Pick a couple off and use them well. If you're going to do that however, KISS--keep it simple stupid. I think its understood not to go for contradictory positions in the 2nr. I'm open to condo arg, multiple worlds. Not super convinced by 'no neg fiat'.


 * 3- Case-** Debate the case. Neg- Put specific offense on case, challenge the aff! Aff- Please use your case past the 1ac. Extend your cards and smart arguments, the 1ac is 8 minutes of offense for you in the rest of the debate, you're wasting your own time if you just disregard it and read a bunch of evidence in later speeches that just rehashes the 1ac ev. Additionally, aff needs to make at least some type of extension to case during the debate, a quick overview, whatever, as long as you're not disregarding case entirely while attempting to answer the negs arguments.


 * 4- Theory/T-** I like theory. I dislike a quick blip, but if you make the theory offense you have specific to the aff/neg and give me offensive reasons to lean your way I'll be convinced. Please call out aff condo if you see it. A good T debate is the same, make sure to give strong competing interpretations. 2NR doesn't have to be all theory if you go for it just make sure that it's impacted well and you contest competing interps and provide advantages to yours.


 * 5- Framework-** I'll hear it, but chill with the same repetitive blocks I've heard over and over again. Again, like theory, give me specificity! Call out warrants of the aff that are problematic, and you better give me a damn good reason as to why a policy will solve the harms of the aff. Same thing, Aff, you need to point out how you solve for the fw impacts. Fairness claims are mostly weak without an in round impact/education.


 * 6- In Round-** Please, be persuasive, be funny and approachable, it seriously helps a lot in making the round a better experience for everyone! Make sure to impact EVERYTHING and specifically answer the other teams offense. In the 2nr/2ar, the best strategy which cannot be repeated enough is write my ballot for me. At the end of the round when I give my decision, it should be your final rebuttal. Take some time to think about your arguments, if that means stopping in the middle of the speech go ahead, at least you're not talking out of your ass. (Who am I kidding- thats all debate)


 * 7- Speaker Points-** I start out at a 27.5, add and subtract points based on speaking ability and what happens in round.


 * 8- Final Disclaimer-** If anything racist/ homophobic/ transmisogynist/ islamophobic/ or something that degrades another team or their members happens in round, the round will end right there with the offending party getting 0 speaks and a loss. don't test me on this.

Any more specific questions, feel free to ask me in round! Have a good day everyone, and good luck debating!