Kassam,+Amyn


 * Amyn Kassam **

Updated Dec 2013

tl;dr -- You can do whatever you want. My threshold for anything is a test of coherency and your engagement with competing arguments. Feel free to ask specific questions.

Longer:

I did LD debate for four years at Dulles High School in Sugar Land, TX where I competed locally and nationally on the UIL, TFA, TOC, and NFL circuits. I have taught at the Texas Debate Collective and the National Debate Forum in Boston. I now attend the University of Texas at Austin and coach Cypress Falls High School.

I think that debate is an open and creative activity and that what makes it great is that it is a place for high school kids to embody that by taking it to be their own game. I see debate as a contest between individuals attempting to prove a proposition true or false. What is required to prove a resolution true or false depends upon the meaning of the resolution and so is unique to a particular resolution. Sometimes the burden is lighter for the Affirmative, sometimes the negative – it depends on how the debaters warrant their evaluations of the resolution. This means I don’t have some silly opposition to what people would call “offense defense arguments” or that I only go by some weird conception of “truth testing.” With that said, my preferences on the round should serve to help you communicate and adapt your ideas to me, but I do not wish to impose strict preferences on what arguments I like more or will or will not listen to. Nor do I wish to give you the impression that if you read certain arguments you are more likely to win. That of course, is a bit idealistic given the nature of debate arguments and what different people qualify them to entail, so I do note some things that may be a problem for you.

Debate should be fun.

Be nice to each other. I like assertiveness, but there’s a difference between that and being rude.

Engage and respond to arguments. A thought up analytic response is probably going to be better than spreading your block. Also, I need implications to arguments. If one is to read counter evidence it is very important that you explain why I prefer yours over your opponent’s. If this is not done I will default to the first card that was read because it is functionally not responded to. This also applies to definitions and other interpretational issues. Thus, especially as the negative, one must actually respond to specific warrants or preclude them with responses.


 * How I Evaluate Rounds - ** A judge’s job is to determine whether or not arguments are sufficiently responded to and whether the arguments in the round necessitate affirming or negating. This conclusion is reached through a comparison of the competing reasons advanced by the debaters. Such evaluations will inevitably be imperfect and are based upon the perception of how strong the arguments are being justified in the round. With that said, I won’t vote on something that I think is a blip, even if it is dropped—I’m left with no reason to think it’s true without even the attempt at a relevant warrant. This also means that I will vote on arguments that I know to be absurd, false, and easily beaten, with the reasoning that the opponent gave comparatively worse analyses in response. But better arguments are always more strategic and interesting for you to go for. Also, **I like good framework debates.**


 * Speed ** – I flow pretty well, just be clear with authors. I will say ‘Clear’ twice or ‘Slow’ if you’re just too fast for me for some reason, the first without impacting speaks since I feel that you should get a chance to adapt since different people receive some voices better than others. The second and last time will start to impact your speaks, and if it’s for the same reason as the first (excessively unclear), you can expect me to not give you much benefit of the doubt when it comes to your arguments and their warrants.


 * Speaks – **<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia,serif;"> I probably average around a 28. 30s are rare.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">DisAds, Plan Affs, Counterplans, PICs, PIKs, other ‘policy arguments’, etc. + Prestandards + Kritiks/Critical Arguments **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">– All fine. I’m familiar with these and think that an argument is an argument regardless of its structure. Although I don’t think these always have to be in their traditional structures (do what is most clear), if they are, then they need to have obvious labels for all the components. Don't read a K and suck at running it just because you think I like critical stuff.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Theory/Topicality – **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Voters need warrants, those warrants can be attacked (although that is probably a bit of an uphill battle since I think that debate generally places value on some notion of fairness or education, but that must be justified and explained). Theory can be an RVI if you explain why.