Helali,+Josh

My name is Josh Helali and I debated for Torrey Pines High School and competed on the national and local circuits for three years. I currently attend UCLA ’17, and graduated High School in 2013. I am conflicted only with Torrey Pines.
 * Background:**

I default to evaluating the truth of the resolution via comparing two worlds, but am open to hearing other interpretations. I will not vote on arguments that are unwarranted, or do not make sense to me because of a lack of clarity in round.
 * General paradigm:**

The way that I evaluate the debate round is first deciding which framework is winning and then resolving who has more offense back to that framework. This doesn’t mean a quantitatively greater amount of offense, but rather overall better quality offense as defined by the standard.

I prefer that theory arguments are run in a four-part shell, or at least read in such a way that the four distinct parts are intelligible. I default reasonability absent arguments by either debater.
 * Theory:**

I’m also hesitant to voting on potential abuse, unless the abuse makes the specific round unfair. I believe that theory should be used as a check on abuse as opposed to a strategic tool. That being said, I will still vote off of any legitimately won theory shell, but will probably dock speaks a little bit if I think it was used as a “cheap shot,” or was unnecessary.

When responding to theory I prefer that you have a counter-interpretation, but will not necessarily drop you if you don’t. I also don’t like nitpicky “I meets” to the grammar or semantics of the interpretation. Also, weighing the specific internal links to fairness in your theory standards in comparison to the opponent’s is most persuasive to me. Weighing individual theory standards in a vacuum does close to nothing (i.e. “ground outweighs predictability because XYZ”).

There is nothing I hate more than when someone chooses an abusive strategy and then tries to hide it or is dishonest about it in the round. If you know you are being abusive in some way, be ready to defend it.

I default no RVIs, but have a very low threshold and will almost always grant one if the argument is read in round. I default drop the debater (however, this may change) and I default that fairness outweighs education.

When I debated I ran a lot of different ethical frameworks so I am somewhat familiar with this type of argumentation. Even so however, I prefer that you read slower when reading the warrants behind your ethical theory, especially if it is something that most debaters are not familiar with. Other things to keep in mind:
 * Frameworks:**
 * 1) Be comparative in your rebuttals when talking about framework rather than dealing with it as separate parts of the flow. No ethical theory is perfect, though if you convince me through comparison that your framework is at least marginally better than your opponent’s, you’ve done an adequate job.
 * 2) I will not buy cross-applications of how your meta-ethic, epistemology, ontology or whatever precludes your opponent’s framework without you actually explaining to me why the warrants behind those arguments logically function that way. E.g. don’t say, “look to my framework because practical reason precludes the social contract;” you need to explain to me how your way of deriving practical reason means that the social contract is excluded.

I very much enjoy watching a well-developed util debate and will probably even give higher speaks if weighing and argumentation is clear. Make sure though you read taglines at regular talking speed and I will love you.
 * Util debates:**

I have little experience dealing with K’s and am not familiar with the literature, despite the fact that I appreciate their place in debate. Overall I’m probably not the judge you want if you plan to run a K, mostly because of lack of experience, but I am totally open to voting for them if I understand the ballot story. I think the biggest problem I have with Ks is that they are generally poorly constructed and confusingly run. It helps a lot if you have a coherent framework for evaluating impacts and an alternative that is explicit and makes sense. I should be able to articulate your arguments in my RFD similarly to how you explained them in round.
 * K’s:**

As for micropolitical arguments, I would prefer that you do not run these in front of me. I don’t feel comfortable voting the opponent down for a cause that my ballot will not realistically contribute to solving.

I am generally fine with speed, though the slower you go the better I’ll flow. I also think that it should not come at the cost of clarity. However, since I haven’t flowed a round since when I debated senior year, I suggest you go about 80% of your top speed and speed up from there. I will yell “slow” if you are speaking too fast, or “clear” if I can’t understand you. Also, please slow down significantly on tag lines, author names, plan/CP texts, and theory interps.
 * Speed:**

I average just above a 28 and will give you above a 28.5 if I think you should break or have a good chance of breaking. I will decide speaks based on your in round strategy, and overall sportsmanship (if that is even an issue).
 * Speaks:**

-Topic-specific debates -Good and thorough weighing, especially in util debates. -Signposting and overviews at the beginning of speeches -Good sportsmanship
 * Things I like:**

-Spreading out a novice debater or purposely reading unnecessary off cases that they probably have no experience dealing with. If you are experienced and are hitting someone who you can tell has just started debating, I expect that you act respectfully towards him or her and make it more of a learning experience than a demoralizing one. -Lying in CX and/or being dishonest about your position in later speeches. -Reading frivolous theory -Not having your stuff ready to flash if you are paperless. -Miscutting evidence -Making your case hard to read, mislabeling arguments, purposely being unorganized, etc. at the expense of your opponent’s prep time or CX is unacceptable.
 * A few things I dislike:**

Finally, try to make sure you have fun while debating. So many debaters get too caught up and nervous about their stats and records at tournaments and don’t realize that debating is really about the experiences you have and how they help you develop as a person. When it’s all over, you’ll realize too that that’s what really matters. Debate because you love it.