Madani,+Ali

I have debated for Emory University for the past three years. Prior to this, I debated for George Walton Academy. My college career has greatly shaped my view of debate so the majority of my judging philosophy is lifted from Dave Heidt.

The high school topic - I have judged at three or four tournaments this year. Keep this in mind if you are running new or complex strategies. Greater explanation may be required

The short version: do what you do best if I'm your judge. As long as you are good at the style of debate you enjoy, I will evaluate your arguments as best as I can. I prefer a DA and case/DA and CP debate but that doesn't mean I won't vote for your K. The only arguments you'll have trouble winning with me are project/performance styles. Winning with these arguments is an uphill battle because I am uncomfortable using my ballot as a personal endorsement and I feel that debate is usually a good thing. Although, as previously stated, if you out-debate your opponents, you will win.

Others: 1. You can run what you like in front of me. While I have very strong preferences or biases, I do my best to keep those from the debate. I really dislike some arguments,such as affirmatives without plans (or even worse, affirmatives with plans that they don’t defend),and frankly any critique that’s reliant upon framework arguments to win. However, just because I don’t like certain arguments doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for them.

2. I think the offense/defense view of judging debates is pretty weak. I have sometimes voted on zero solvency or zero net benefit or no abuse. However, this is usually the exception rather than the rule, because its rare that a team actually challenges the offense/defense view, or when they do challenge it, they usually don’t do a good job.

3. I think that new arguments can sometimes be justified and new cross-applications are frequently justified. This is especially true with impact assessments or evidence comparisons—even if these are new, if it hasn’t occurred earlier in the debate, I’d prefer to rely on a new assessment than to insert my own judgment about it.

4. Theory. I generally lean neg on most theory questions (conditionality, dispo, PICs) and abuse is helpful for affs to win these theory debates. However, I tend to think that the neg gets away with far to much with it comes to counterplan legitimacy. Running four counterplans or one with six planks to solve any possible aff offense is generally abusive.