Boghosian,+Aram

Name: Aram Boghosian Affiliation: None School Attended: Lexington High School

I competed in LD for three years, two on the national circuit, and judged a lot after graduating. I’ve since been removed from the world of LD for some time and my paradigm has changed from what it once was.

In short, debaters should provide me with a mechanism for evaluating the round and explain why it preferences voting for the arguments they are winning.

Standards: It is best if I am given something explicit. You don’t need a traditional V/C structure, as long as you warrant your approach and I can use it to evaluate impacts. In the traditional structure, I view the links between the criterion, value, and resolution as the warrants. My default stance (which is contestable) is that the value selected should be the one most inherent to the resolution, e.g. ‘democracy’ if the resolution is questioning whether democracy is best served by a strict separation of church and state. I tend to view the criterion as a filter for assessing which impacts matter in the round. If multiple standards are emerging on the flow, explain what order they should be evaluated in. When I have to intervene, I am typically forced to either use my own beliefs or default to the standard that I think is most pertinent to testing the truth of the resolution as a statement (I generally believe this is the purpose of the round).

Arguments: I enjoy smart substantive debate. To be considered, an argument should be warranted and impacted and both of these components should be extended in each subsequent speech. I do not hold carded evidence to a different standard from analytical analysis. I will not vote for an argument that I do not understand the first time it is presented. It will help you a lot if you weigh arguments using the specific language of the standard.

Speed: I prefer that rounds take place at a roughly conversational pace. I have no principled objection to speed but my ability to flow high velocity rounds has greatly diminished with time. If you need to go fast, I recommend slowing down for author names and important links. I believe that debate is a communicative activity, so I usually won’t call your cases/cards after the round and try to piece together what was said (the exception tends to be when the wording of a card becomes a crucial source of clash or I think it was my fault for not hearing you).

Theory: I view theory as a necessary evil and will be skeptical unless it is being used to check clear in round abuse. As a topic progresses, you should have substantive answers to specific positions beyond generic conditionality arguments.