Ghanimian,+Levon

** Hey Everyone! **

Before I start, I'll give a little background info about myself. I competed in LD Debate with Granada Hills Charter High School, and now in college, I compete in Policy Debate with California State University, Northridge. I'm familiar with Parli and Pofo as well since I've done several tournaments in both. I'm a pretty easy going judge that will be fine with any arguments you decide to run. Debate is supposed to be a fun learning experience and I intend to create that environment when I judge. With that being said, don't be afraid to run risky arguments or unconventional cases. Have fun! If you need any clarifications of my paradigms before the round, don't hesitate to ask me.

** Yes, I'd like to be included in the e-mail chain. My e-mail is ghanimian.levon.98@gmail.com **

** Now moving onto my paradigms: **

 **General:** I come in as a Tabula Rasa, so my biases are thrown out the door. Organization is key to being a successful debater and the easier you make it for me to comprehend your argument, the better chance you have of winning the round. EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND! Being passionate is great, but don't confuse that with being rude. Insensitivity doesn't give me a good first impression of you. Lastly, HAVE FUN!  ** Framework: **Values are the most important part for me in LD. I absolutely love philosophy and will be accepting of any values you decide to run. With that said, make sure your arguments are warranted. I want you to clearly show me the link, don't expect me to link it for you or make your arguments for you. I only flow what has been said in the round. I will usually vote off of the values rather than contention level debate, but that doesn't mean I believe that evidence is useless or unimportant. My main focus in Values is the VC. Please actually have some clash in the VC and make the round fun. This is mainly for traditional tournaments, as Circuit LD rounds don't even have a PV or VC anymore.

 **Cross Examination:** Cross ex is probably my favorite part of debate, but many students seem to forget its main purpose. Use CX to find holes in your opponent's case or to trap them. For some reason, a lot of debaters begin to argue with statements rather than questions, don't do this. Also, don't be rude. A little bit of sass is fine, but don't start personally attacking your opponent, otherwise, I'll start docking speaker points. "Don't you think?" questions really irk me.

** DAs: ** DA's are great, love 'em, but PLEASE make your links for me. I will not make your links for you and start debating for you. Impact calc is IMPERATIVE.

 **Theory:** I like theory arguments as long as they're logical and actually make sense. Using theory to try to get an "easy win" while your opponent has no violations genuinely irks me. However, I'm completely fine with you having a T Shell ready, but just EXPLAIN how your opponent is being abusive or violating. I'd prefer that y'all don't make me vote only off of theory. I expect there to be some substance in the round.

** Kritiks: ** K's are my favorite off case since I've basically been a K debater in policy. K's I've run: Heidegger, Dialectical Materialism/HMA/Orthodox Marxism, Gendered Language, Genocide Trivialization, Ableism, Generic Cap, and Ecofem. If you actually understand the philosophy of your K, it adds a whole other level to the debate. If you plan on running a team K without understanding the true meaning behind the philosophy, I will get annoyed. I'll be able to decide if you actually understand your K when you analyze it in your own words. I'm also fine with K Aff's and I've recently been interested in rhetoric Ks (Ableism, Gendered Language, Genocide Trivialization, etc.). So feel free to go for it. If you couldn't tell, I think that links are important. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT FOR A K. SHOW me the link. WHY are they inherently flawed? HOW does your alternative solve for the AFF and more? Impact calc on the K is super important. For the AFF, I'd like to hear a perm. When going against K AFF's, I really like TVA arguments.

 **Counterplans:** There's this thing called NET BENEFIT. It would help if you actually showed me your NET BENEFIT. I'll usually vote for a CP if you can prove that you have more NET BENEFIT. If there's a CP in the round, I expect the AFF to yell PERM.

** Speed: **I'm fine with spreading. It would help me if you slow down for taglines and sources so I can clearly flow it down. If you start to get incomprehensible, I'll say, "clear." //__** Make sure your opponent is ok with spreading. If they aren't, DON'T SPREAD. **__//