Merchant,+Kamil

__**Kamil Merchant**__

Last year I graduated from law school from the University of Illinois College of Law, and previously completed a degree in philosophy from the University of California, San Diego. I debated LD at New Trier Township HS and went to the 2006-07 ToC. I coached Torrey Pines Students until 2012, and worked with Evanston for a year after.

The short story is that I want you to explain by the end of the round how I evaluate the round (i.e. explain what mechanism I use to weigh arguments, why your arguments meet that/why your opponents don't and the basic order in which I evaluate arguments); I really like to hear good overviews that explain the round. I presume Neg unless told otherwise (don't make me vote on presumption... that means there is not even a risk of offense in the round); theory is fine, speed is fine; Ks are fine; I will yell clear and call for evidence after the round if need be. I don't need very long extensions in the 1AR or 2AR. But if you want me to vote on the offense you need to make very clear what the argument is doing for you in the round. So please weigh and tell me why I should want to endorse your world over your opponent's world.
 * Paradigm**:

Theory: I evaluate theory based on competing interpretations. I don't give more weight to cards on theory than I do to smart analytics. I want to hear a comparison of internal warrants and weighing between standards/interpretations. I used to like RVIs before I realized how much they destroy debates... So my threshold for winning an RVI has definitely gone up.

Frameworks: I'm open to whatever framework you want to read as long as you can explain how I use it to evaluate offense. If that means you want to read a layered framework, then by all means go for it. Just make it sure it is coherent for the resolution and the agent in the resolution.

MicroPol: I've voted for it and I've voted against it. I tend to prefer narrative arguments where the impact is to either affirm or negate the resolution. But I have heard very good positions that just look to issues of race in debate at large. At the end of the day I treat it like any other argument: tell me how I should evaluate the round and why you win under that evaluation. If that means your ballot story doesn't look to the resolution, then justify it and win that position. I honestly think the best round of debate I've seen was the Northwestern v. Emporia final round of NDT. At one point I thought Emporia squarely won, then I started to think Northwestern did. Now I'm not sure, but lean towards the Emporia side.

Speaker Points:I reward coherence and clarity above all else. I love hearing good comparisons of evidence and comparisons of internal warrants. The way to get a 30 is for your last rebuttal to say exactly what my RFD on the ballot says. That means you explain how each argument interacts and why the way everything falls means I vote for you. This approach especially rewards good comparison of evidence and internal warrants.

As an aside, I firmly believe debaters should disclose positions, but don't feel that I have the jurisdiction to vote on disclosure theory bc it's conduct that occurred outside of the debate round. I can be persuaded to vote for disclosure theory, but I really dislike it and feel like it's a cop-out. I'd much rather hear an argument about why you should receive benefit of the doubt on resolving arguments in your favor bc you disclosed and your opponent didn't.

Anything else, feel free to ask me prior to the round!