Maria+Mohammed

Quick info about me, I have judged at three tournaments this year so I should be able to follow some of your details on the topic. And I’m in my fourth year of debate in college.

I am open to any kind of argument you want to run, as long as you explain it well. Even if I know the type of argument you are running or know the cards you are reading, I will still hold you to a higher standard if you are not able to explain it well. This might primarily apply to K args but is also important for straight-up debate. In terms of preference, I don’t have any. As a 2A, I feel comfortable ‘K’ish affs or straight-up affs so you should feel comfortable to run both types of arguments in front of me.

I would like to watch debate that engage the case and not just delve into tag line debates, I expect you to engage each other’s warrants, especially in the rebuttals and not just extend your author. In short, tell me why I should believe your card over the other team’s.

In terms of how I usually evaluate a round, I usually like to resort to the impact framing you lay out in your rebuttals. More specific details about this are listed below for each argument.

CPs and DAs: If you read a generic CP solvency and the aff has a specific solvency deficit, I will evaluate the solvency deficit versus the CPs net benefit. I like it when affs point this out earlier in the debate, and when the neg team reads their specific CP solvency cards in the 1NC and not wait til the block. In terms of CP theory, I usually resort to reject the arg and not the team, but if the aff makes specific args that the neg does not handle properly, I could be convinced otherwise.

Topicality: I enjoy good impact debates on T and not just simple reading of blocks, also, it will help your speaker points if you are to articulate some in round abuse as part of your impact and not just presumptive abuse. In short, I would like to evaluate T as I would a DA.

Kritiks: This is probably the type of argument where it is hard for me to articulate what my position is. Hope what I’m about to say will give you some sense of how I will evaluate it. I would expect the neg to explain their link arguments in the context of the aff, I will also expect you to explain how your alt will solve for the specific args the aff is making if that is what you plan to go for. Even if in a context of a floating PIK, I still expect the neg to articulate this solvency. In terms of framework on the K, I don’t have any preference as long as each team argues why I should evaluate each other’s impacts and link args. Other than what I’ve said so far, debate is a game so you should have fun doing it. And please be nice to everyone in the room!