Ayaz,+Talha


 * Talha Ayaz**


 * Policy Debater for the University of Houston 2013-present**


 * Policy Debater for Clear Lake High School 2011-2013 **


 * __Paradigms: __**

 **__General overview: __**

I like to evaluate debate on a clean slate; however I wouldn’t label myself any specific type of judge. It is up to the debaters what arguments they want to make, however here are some things that I find important in a round.

My evaluation of the debate is heavily dependent on the flow, which is why I stress the importance of a concrete line-by-line and clear organization.

I don’t look at dropped arguments lightly, however I will not vote on them unless they are well extended and articulated throughout the round. This goes for any argument for that matter. I won't make arguments or assumptions for/against you.

I am typically cool with most arguments, so go for what you feel you would argue/articulate best.

It goes without say that all arguments should be well warranted. I’ll have a hard time evaluating your argument if it is incredibly incoherent.

It is good to be assertive, but please do not be rude to one another. It won’t reflect well on speaks. Speaking of which, this is the basic breakdown:

<27: Lots of work to do. Sub 27s will be a result of one or more of the following: poor road maps/sign posting, lack of clarity, lack of structure etc.

27.1-28: Average. You've got the basics down, and have made some fair arguments, but could be better.

28.1-28.4: Above average. Made the round enjoyable, however you may have made some technical/speaking errors.

28.5-30: You should win a speaker award. Things such as ethos, technical craft, and clarity will get you here.

Spreading: great as long as you are clear. Please give clear transitions between cards, a loud "and" should be fine. I typically do not have any problem with speed. I will say clear if I do not understand you. Speed isn’t the problem, its clarity, so whatever pace you choose to go make sure that you are clearly speaking. Slow down on theory, plan texts, and tags.

Evidence: If your cards are on paper, flip them to where your opponent can easily access them, if you are paperless, your opponent needs to have access to your evidence before you start your speech. I'll call for evidence if necessary. I do believe that very genuine and strong arguments can be made without cards by recognizing the logical deficiencies in the opponent's argument. These arguments, if made correctly, will be rewarded with high speaks. I don't count flash as prep, however don't take too long. I have very little tolerance for stealing prep, so be mindful and fair.

Overall, have fun, don't be rude, and make meaningful arguments.

__**The specifics:**__
Any argument that is well warranted will be evaluated. Comparative analysis and impact calculus are important. Multiple negative worlds are fine as long as you can defend conditionality. Whatever you decide to do, impact analysis is integral to how I evaluate your argument.

 **K affs **— I enjoy them. I love the philosophical depth these types of arguments provide. I feel that if you are going to read a K aff, you should have a strong understanding of it, and be able to clearly portray the significance of your advocacy to me. If you are untopical or do not present a plan text, I expect you to give me clear and concise argumentation on why you can't solve through a topical version of the aff or with the use of a plan text (I tend to be dissuaded if you are untopical, and cannot defend your reasoning for this well). I will evaluate performance arguments similarly, as in I need you to extrapolate why your method of engagement or advocacy is significant and uniquely key to solve for your harms.

 **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Kritiks **— As long as you can articulate the argument well and clearly contextualize it to the aff I will evaluate it. I feel like very few debaters end up articulating the world of the alternative sufficiently in the debate, which I feel is an issue. If you aren't too strong on the alternative and want to go for the criticism as pure offense without a counteradvocacy, I expect a very meticulous impact calculus against the aff's impacts.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Topicality **—T is fine. I don't like judging T very much because of the lack of clash, and feel that jude intervention to some extent is inevitable in a lot of high school rounds. I feel that the final speeches should concentrate on impacting the standards in the context of how the competing interpretations affect the tangible debate space above all else (if the debate comes down to T that is). I don't like spec very much..

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Case— ** I believe that case is heavily underrated. There should always be some sort of case argumentation within the debate. I believe that good case arguments are vital to a strong negative strategy, and only go to help your chance of winning the round. I'll evaluate case specific offense by how well you impact them (Convince me that the opportunity cost is substantial, and that the world of the affirmative is net worse as a result of the offense you've provided). I am more persuaded by try or die rather than "terminal" defense, and thus I need some form of offense in order to give you the win, unless you persuade me to evaluate the debate in a different way.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">DAs **— Great, as long as your argument is relevant in conjunction to the aff, rather than an arbitrary leap of logic. Link articulation is what I find most important. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">I hold a high threshold for link evidence, and thus the more specific the better. 1% risk isn't very persuasive unless coupled with more concrete offense somewhere else.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">CPs **— Fine. I expect strong analysis and rationalization of the net benefit in contrast to the aff for whatever counter-advocacy you provide. I feel that I am often persuaded by the permutation because I feel that teams on the negative often do not sufficiently warrant why the advocacies are mutually exclusive aside from some weak DA/Case argument that is easily picked apart, so be wary of this. If you are going to run an elaborate conditions CP, I need elucidation on the significance of the conditions you have provided, and their relevance to the net benefit.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Theory— ** I don’t like it very much, but will vote on it if it is an adequately warranted argument. Flowing this is typically a nightmare for me because of the lack of clash and organization. I don't like having to sit down and solving the puzzles of the standards "debate", because it causes more intervention. I'd much rather have you do that part for me. Impact your arguments. I have a high threshold for theory. If you are going to go for it, you should be able to persuade me that it __clearly__ warrants my ballot as a result of what has occurred in the round. Just as for T, <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">the final speeches should concentrate on impacting the standards in the context of how the competing theoretical views effect the debate space.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me before the round.