Maredia,+Ali

__**ABOUT ME**__

I debated for 2 years at Nederland High School, in Nederland, Texas. I'm very familiar with policy debate in UIL, but I have also gained a large amount of knowledge about TFA and NSDA debates. I have also delved in parliamentary debate and LD, although I am more comfortable judging policy debates. I've also judged Humorous Interpretation, although my humor is terrible.

I'm an undergraduate Electrical and Computer Engineering major at The University of Texas at Austin and I do research in performance telemetrics and public key infrastructure, so what I do is very different from the world of debate. This means I might not be super familiar with any cutting edge arguments or strategies, so keep that in mind.

Although I try very hard to be as unbiased as possible, because I am a technical person and a researcher, I do have slight biases towards quality scientific evidence, logic, and mathematical facts.


 * I've never understood why judges get all annoyed and angry when debaters enter the room before them. If you know where the room assignment is, you don't have to wait on me, just go on in and chill. I can't see how it offends judges when diligent debaters go to their rooms and get ready ahead of time.**


 * I'd rather the timing in the round and prep time be managed by the debaters, but I'll manage it if necessary. Both sides should be in agreement on when prep time starts and ends. I'm probably a bit too lax about prep time, but it's up to the debaters on how to manage it.**


 * Whatever you want to do in the debate is fine with me. If there is some kind of argument or argumentative technique that you're afraid I won't vote on or won't like, don't worry, I'm receptive and open to everything. Three words: go for it.**


 * __SHORT VERSION (aka, the debate is about to start and I have no idea who this judge is and I need to find out quick):__ **

The debate isn't about me. It's about the students debating. Don't adapt to me; I will adapt to you. That's the way it should work. You're important, not me. Do what you do best. I try very hard to be completely unbiased, no matter what kind of argumentation you prefer, but remember, I'm very flow-centric, and I will heavily evaluate your analysis of the argumentation in the debate. I don't care how fast you go, as long as there is clarity.

If you're not dressed up fancy or don't have stellar communication skills, don't worry. I only judge based on your arguments and ideas. If you're wearing swimming shorts and a t-shirt and making great arguments in the round, I'd rather vote for you than a guy in a fancy suit making terrible arguments (like trying to tell me that it's not cold in Alaska).


 * __LONG VERSION (for the debaters who are okay with spending time reading some guy's paradigm):__ **

The one thing that matters the most to me in a debate is the flow, because it minimizes any bias and intervention. My job is to adjudicate the round, not debate or apply anything for you. Hopefully, you'll be doing the debating and applying. If you like to go extremely fast, I'd highly appreciate if you would slow down and make clear distinctions on the important arguments, tag lines, author names, and dates. This is to ensure that I have them flowed. I understand if you might be in a hurry, but at least make a clear distinction, if you can't slow down. It's better for me and it will be of benefit to you. I value your analysis and will heavily evaluate it because it allows me to make a decision without intervening.

I don't usually call for cards, but I will if I have to. Your last rebuttals should evaluate the evidence in the round and provide comparison. I am okay with low-quality evidence if you can make that evidence better with analysis and spin.


 * __ Topicality __** – I'm totally okay with T arguments, and I have and will vote on T. Yes, most of the time they are run as a time-suck, but I'm okay with that. However, you won't win the debate on T unless you develop it well (especially in the block) and provide good evidence. If you take any of your T evidence out of context, your argument won't be convincing to me. Use good evidence to support your T argument. I don't lean towards a certain standard, but in a topicality debate, the standards should be argued by both sides and analyzed. Back when I debated, I remember some judges didn't like it when T was brought up on an aff that seemed pretty topical, but I believe that the topicality of an aff should be questioned, even if it may seem "obviously" topical.


 * __ Disadvantages __** – I really don't have to say if disads are okay, since almost all judges are fine with them. I evaluate both offense and defense on DAs, but don't worry if you only can provide defense, I still value that. Truthfully, we all know the probability of DAs are pretty low and even though they might be claimed to have 100% risk, the aff can definitely knock risk down with good answers and analysis. When providing impact calculus, I would like to hear comparisons between the DA impact(s) and the aff's advantages. Assess all the parts of the DA and really focus on the impact calculus. I don't really have any problems with generics or any other particular disad. DA links don't have to be unique, but it certainly will help you if they are. I don't see a lot of good disads often, but I do enjoy it when I see one that's pretty solid.


 * __ Counterplans __** – I am totally cool with CPs. However, I am open to aff theory and objections to CPs. I don't mind if your CP is topical. I also have no problems with PICs. Be as creative as you want with your CP.


 * __ Kritiks __** – They’re pretty cool and I am totally okay with them. However, I expect debaters to know them well if they decide to argue them. You need to explain relevant terms. If you want to take a kritik through the neg block, I expect a sort of coherent link, impact, and alternative story. I will not vote on your kritik if it is clear that you have absolutely no idea what it is about or if you cannot explain it to me well. Trust me, I'll make my facial expression clear to you if I do not understand. I am familiar with a lot of K literature, but I never really was a big K debater. That being said, I like and appreciate a good kritik. I don't have any problems with any particular types of kritiks, even the "weirder" fringe ones.

__**Kritikal Affirmatives**__ – I am totally okay with K Affs, but the aff should defend a sustainable interpretation of debate. I don't mind if you throw away the resolution, but you should have a reason why. If you decide to run a K Aff, make sure you understand it well and debate it properly. If you do so, I will thoroughly enjoy it.


 * __ Performance __** – Totally ok. Solidifying your advocacy will help you incredibly. I highly recommend you do that. I want to know what your vision is for the world of debate. Be prepared to clarify your views and position during CX.


 * __ Theory __** – I probably like theory and other procedural arguments more than I should. I know that many theoretical objections require not just simply rejecting the argument, but punishing the team, but good analysis and substantial work needs to be done on why that particular issue is important. I'm pretty cool with specification arguments, but I don't really know if I would vote on one if it came down to it. I've never been in that position before. I'm okay with voting for issues like fairness, education, and abuse in the round.

__**Case**__ – I like seeing case arguments a lot. I understand the lack of them in rounds where the aff may be rather unique and weird, but good case arguments can really help you. Debating the case is totally underrated.

__**Speaker Points**__ – I like to reward good debaters. Even if I vote against you, if you have debated well and fought it out valiantly, I will give you high speaks. However, I will not just simply give away perfect speaker points and undeserved speaker points. That would simply be unfair to other debaters and would create point inflation. In all, I'd say that I'm a bit more generous than most judges when it comes to speaker points, but I'm not the speaker point fairy.


 * __ Miscellaneous __**


 * A little bit of advice:** Debates are really won or lost in CX. I never believed it when I was debating, but after judging a lot of debates, I see a direct correlation between winning rounds and having killer CX, and losing rounds and choking during CX.

I enjoy smart analytics. They'll usually make me smile, and if you see me smiling, that's a good thing. That means I'm enjoying your argumentation and/or analysis.

Don't be rude. However, I do have a high tolerance towards this kind of behavior, but don't test me. Otherwise, I'll be rude to your speaker points.