Hamraie,+Aimi

Aimi Hamraie
Affiliations/constraints:

Emory, Colleyville Heritage
Full disclosure: with the exception of teaching at debate camp, I've been out of the activity for a few years and likely will not have done any work on the topic. In fact, as of writing this, I only vaguely know the topic area and have never read the resolution.

-Evidence: I prefer to only read it if something is insufficiently explained by debaters. In doing so, I look for warranted arguments supported by evidence rather than rhetoric.
 * Style-related things you should know about me**:

-I have a //really// high threshold for argument extensions/explanations. You have to say more than just a tagline. For example, if the other team drops an argument, you will not get away with "they dropped our arg that the DA is nonunique." You have to extend a warrant. If the other team drops your perm, you have to say more than "they dropped the perm." You have to say why it avoids the net benefit, etc. If an argument is dropped, a proper extension must be a claim AND a warrant. That probably sounds horribly elementary but in almost every debate that I judge, becomes a big deal when one team tagline extends an argument that they do not get that the other team is calling them out on.

I hear objections like "but it was dropped! That makes it true!" While I generally agree, most of the time the "argument" in question is just a card, and the warrants have not yet been explained. More often than not, the other team is explaining the warrants to their competing claim and the team with the supposedly "dropped" argument does not consider the big picture way in which explaining warrants helps win the general thesis of their overall argument. This is also why I think that arguments are rarely ever dropped if they are answered by an overarching argument or set of arguments the other team is making. Bottom line: ESPECIALLY in final rebuttals, if you are spending less than 3 seconds on an argument, doing merely tagline extension, I will rarely call for the evidence or even consider it an important issue in the debate.

-I fundamentally believe that debate should be hard. I //sometimes// think abusing the other team is legitimate to equalize win ratios. I find it annoying when people whine about debate being hard when they cannot articulate a reason why said difficulty is a reason they should win debates. At the same time, I am often frustrated with teams who rely on defense alone in theory debates. -I often find myself having to decide tie breakers that determine whether one piece of evidence is better than another. I have been defaulting to more warranted/highlighted evidence over unwarranted evidence, including unwarranted evidence with very strong rhetoric that seems to say exactly what a team wants it to claim but doesn't provide a warrant. I have also been defaulting to newer ev vs. older ev that makes an opposite claim.

-I find it very frustrating when I am asked to personally endorse something or attitudinally endorse someone's strategy for social change within debate. If you are going to make arguments like this, ask me to evaluate them theoretically, not as an individual. I am tired of people bringing my identity politics into debate, into the community, and into discussions of what the activity means. Please stop. -I evaluate critical args like disads and CP’s—you don’t have to have an alternative but I generally think offense requires uniqueness. I hate hypergeneric critical debates in which either side makes totalizing assumptions and impact claims. With that said, I think the neg (or the aff, whoever is making the args) gets away with a lot of stuff because the other team doesn’t call them out on it. -Framework questions are important—what is the role of the ballot? How does the alternative function? What does the alt do to the 1ac? If you’re aff and you’re not asking these questions you are probably in trouble. You should also be aware of the way framework interacts with specific arguments. The number of teams who go for "fiat bad" frameworks while going for K's that are just policy-level impact turns to the aff amazes me.
 * Kritik’s**:

-I find topicality debates very tedious. I only ever went for T twice in my debate career; I don’t like thinking about grammar, etc. I guess I’d say that T is like other arguments in that you have to win offense if you’re neg for why your interp is good for the topic. I have found myself increasingly defaulting to competing interpretations unless the aff overwhelmingly meets the neg's violation. - Theory arguments are usually stupid and underdeveloped, unless someone surprises you with a PIC you’re not ready for and you have nothing else to go for. I have enjoyed watching theory debates in which there weren’t just blocks being read (especially in the last two rebuttals) but the debaters gave examples of in round abuse and potential abuse and why it mattered. I’m kind of nonchalant about a lot of things. You have to tell me why I should care. Generally, if you go for T or theory I will probably think you are lazy.
 * T/theory**:

-It has come to my attention that kids these days are reading like, 3 conditional CP's in the 1NC. This was not a norm when I debated and I am still trying to decide what I think about it. That doesn't mean I want the aff to go for theory necessarily, but there should probably be a tiny bit more time spent justifying why any of this is okay. -Big abusive CP’s that do everything but the aff are great for the neg, but I think you should have a theoretical justification of why you read them. At the same time, if someone reads the Congress CP, I’d much rather hear your substantive answers than a generic agent CP’s bad debate. -I will think CP/plan/perm texts are important and should be written out at least by the end of the debate for comparison. I will probably also think that you have the burden of explaining whatever you just said does.
 * CP’s**:

-I love love love big DA/case debates. I love it when the neg impact turns the aff. I hate it when they aren't technically savvy enough to win those debates because they don't make risk assessments and impact calculus. -Do not just extend arguments and expect me to read tons of evidence for you after the round. You may end up angry at me, or lucking out, but your speaker points will reflect the degree to which I think you lucked out by not explaining your arguments. Tricky arguments will get you extra points. -It is entirely possible for affs to win by going for defense against disads as long as it is good defense and they are winning offense elsewhere. Uniqueness contributes to but does not wholly determine the direction of the link. It is your job to make args that supplant the link to your DA.
 * DA's:**

-I consider a 28.5 to be solid. 28 is about average. 29 is awesome. 29.5 means you should be a top 5 speaker. -I heavily reward people who use cross-x effectively. I think it’s the most important part of the debate and you should use it strategically. When cross-x is boring, however, I often tune it out like a bad TV commercial.
 * Speaker points**: