Tahmasiyan,+Oliver

Affiliations: Olathe Northwest High School (Olathe, KS): 2010-2014 University of West Georgia (Carrolton, GA): 2014-2015 I debated Policy for 4 years and LD for 3 years in high school

__**Resolution**__ **Experience:** -None thus far (16-17 topic)

--I will vote on just about any argument but if you say anything degrading to anyone in the room then I am fine voting you down on principle. The other team doesn’t even need to mention it (but it never hurts if you do). I will not accept excuses along the lines of “it was ironic” or “it was a joke”. THIS is your warning. --With the above being said I will say that I will vote on arguments like whiteness, patriarchy, etc. good, but good luck actually winning those arguments. If you go for an argument like this and lose then your speaks will show it just as well as my ballot. This statement is just me making it clear that I believe there is a distinction between meaningless slurs that are hurtful and arguments that are probably not strategic. --I flow on paper which means please go slow on tags (especially if it’s a K where your tags are way too long) and slow down for theory. --I will say “clear” once and only once per person per round if necessary (this is assuming that I’m not on a panel. If I’m on a panel I will try to ask my fellow judges if they are okay with me saying it. If any judge asks me not to then I won’t). Any argument that I can’t catch won’t end up on my flow and I won’t evaluate it. (Pro tip: don’t start any speech at your top speed, start a little slower and pick up so the judge can adjust to your voice. It’ll make it easier for them and, in return, easier for you). --I’ll try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I don’t believe tabula rasa is a paradigm so I’ll say that my paradigm defaults aff (aff choice yo) and it’s the job of the neg to persuade me out of that frame. --I don’t have an assumption as to what the role of the aff or neg are. That’s a debate to be had. --I will not evaluate multiple worlds for the negative. Learn to make 2NR choices. --The easiest way to lose my ballot is to not explain anything to me. If I have no clue what you are arguing then I won’t vote on it. Don’t assume that I’m familiar with your K lit or your politics scenario, always explain it. --2 easy ways to win my ballot: 1. (win that //x // is a voting issue) + (win that you access/solve //x //) = Ballot 2. (win that //x //is bad) + (win that other team is //x //) = Ballot --I’ve been all speaker position this year. Take that as you will.
 * __Top Line__**
 * with the above noted, persuasion is certainly far more than a math equation and proving any of the above things can come in many forms.


 * C****ase:** I’ll vote on case turns. I’ll also vote on presumption just tell me why presumption is a reason to reject the aff (it might be hard but it’s possible). I'm becoming more and more likely to vote against affirmatives if they don't


 * Disadvantages:** Specific link arguments always outweigh generic but are not necessary. Impact calc is necessary if you want to win. Don’t forget to explain the internal link. I feel as though people don't do a good enough job explaining their disadvantages. Taking a little extra time to explain the DA in the block/2NR will make me very happy.


 * Counterplans:** I’ve never been much of a counterplan debater but I think they can be smart and strategic and I’m in no way against them. I do think that a lot of counterplans are very susceptible to theory but if you can defend it than you do you.


 * Theory:** I tend to be persuaded by “reject the argument not the team” arguments but it’s a debate to be had. I think that a lot of the time rejecting the argument means rejecting the team because they need to win that argument to win the debate but it’s situational. Clash with their standards and if you go for the theory argument then please spend enough time explaining it.


 * Topicality:** I have a low threshold for T. I’ll vote on any interpretation if you can prove that this interpretation is better for debate. Having a method of proving in-round abuse is helpful if you want to win fairness as a voter. I default to competing-interpretations and if you argue reasonability please explain what that means (how do I determine if something is reasonable?)


 * Criticisms:** I love criticisms, they are easily my favorite argument to debate and to watch if they are good. If you aren’t very good with criticisms then it can be the most horrid debate to judge. Don’t assume that because you ran a K that I’ll vote for you. You don’t need to have an alt but you better be able to explain why if they push the issue.


 * Critical Affirmatives:** Look at my notes for criticisms, they all apply here. I like a K-aff that actually does something so make sure it’s clear. I do not believe that the job of the aff is to defend the resolution, but engaging the resolution will help you win FW. Let me be clear that engaging and defending are two distinct concepts (neg-neg FWs are pretty cool to me).

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round (but if you question is answered on this page then I’m immediately dropping your speaks unless you have a good reason)
 * Performance:** Pretty much all the same stuff on criticisms and critical affirmatives. You’d be safe to do a little more explanation on the purpose of your performance.
 * Persuasion: ** Didn't really know what else to label this portion but I just want to note that, since debate is a game of persuasion, I do believe that there are certainly things that can be used over technicality to win debates as tools of persuasion. For example if you know how to establish stronger ethos and use it persuasively it may not be necessary to speed read. Or, if you do speed read, it takes a lot of work to build back ethos and bad speed reading is a quick way to lose my ballot. Good speed reading just means you aren't constantly losing ethos, you still have a lot to do to make up ground. Your flow better be on point though.


 * I will likely be changing this page as I feel necessary. I’ll try to avoid changing it too much but if you know you have me as a judge check to see when the last time I updated it was.**
 * Last Updated: 9/8/2016 @12:40PM**