Koohestani,

**Background**
I debated for Putnam City North High School in Oklahoma City for four years, graduating from the Class of 2012. I debated on the national circuit primarily my Junior and Senior year, breaking at a couple circuit tournaments, such as St. Marks and Berkeley, with an overall winning record. I currently attend Wake Forest University.

The Short(er) Version
I hate intervening. I hate this dichotomy of a "Good judge vs. Bad judge", and I think a lot of that stems from the fact that many judges simply step outside of their role of trying to be as "objective" as possible. Ultimately, I want you to have fun and compete at the level that you want to compete in. In other words, debate how you feel comfortable. If you're reading this paradigm while you're waiting for me to step inside our round, you might want to know these: Speed is fine, just slow down on tag-lines and author names. I will yell clear twice at most. CPs, DAs, Plans, Ks, etc. are fine with me. I hate unnecessary, stupid theory debates. If I feel you are running theory as a strategic tool to exert your lameness over another, I will gladly make your speaks suffer; this is all relative to what happens in round, but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying here. If you have any questions, by all means ask before the round or tournament, and I will let you know. Remember, this is not to say that I will not vote for a certain argument, simply that your speaker points will reflect your performance as they should.

Truth-Testing vs Comparative Worlds
I am a truth-tester at heart; this all depends on the wording of the topic. However, you should embrace whichever style you prefer. Ultimately, I will adjudicate the round based on how you and your opponent establish the lens of the round.

Speed
By all means, go fast. However, don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I don't know what you're saying or can't hear it, I will not evaluate the argument. NOTE: Make sure you slow down for taglines and author names. Often times when you think you're going slow, you're really not. I need to be able to know when one argument ends and when one begins.

Presumption
My views on presumption have changed over the past couple years quite a bit, so this is what it comes down to: I will vote on it. I'll just get tired and upset of hearing seven reasons why you vote aff absence substance. I'll naturally have a lower threshold against it. This is not to say that just cause you run presumption I'm going to obliterate your speaks like I did to Diablo on Normal mode, but I will if you do go for a poor strat through presumption.

Theory
I remain consistent with Mischa O'Connell's views on theory debate, so instead of taking him out of context, these are also my views on theory:

"i believe that there are circumstances in which arguments about what should be expected in a debate round are appropriate. that said, in recent years the tendency to utilize theory arguments inappropriately has become rather widespread. i think that theory overtaking the discussion of the topic is generally undesirable, and that the current climate of theory debate has put debaters answering theory in some fairly absurd situations. as such, some preferences i will note: 1) if you want me to *vote* on a theory argument it had better be very well justified. theory arguments should exist to supplement and frame debates as opposed to overtaking them. similarly i tend myself to be more receptive towards theory arguments that ask me to exclude positions rather than vote against debaters.  2) given the lack of a consistent language to ld topics and the varying nature of ld topic areas, i tend to presume that debaters don't need to provide a counter-interpretation to justify their strategies in response to theory. ld is designed to allow for a unique amount of exploration on questions of value, framework, and meaning, as well as questions of application and policymaking; i err on the side of academic freedom within the boundaries of the topic, so i would rather you prove to me that a position is unacceptable rather than proving that there may be a better way to do things and that your opponent lacks a counter-interpretation. 3) i think it's legitimate to question what motivations we have for voting on or considering theory arguments. so i'm open to interesting arguments about fairness and education, and arguments that there should be other concerns which structure our theorizing of debates.

theory as strategic tool vs. check on abuse: most of the time i just don't like to see theory debates if it can be helped. as a consequence of this i think i'd prefer to see you running theory as a response to some abuse story rather than just a way to nab a ballot while ignoring the topic. i'll vote on theory arguments in response to things that i don't find abusive, but my threshold is much lower for voting on theory arguments that seem intuitive. on the whole i'd prefer to see fairness, education, or concerns external to the topic used as reasons to prefer an interpretation of how the round should break down rather than a reason someone should lose. i'll vote on it, but this shouldn't probably be your a-game."

Essentially, if I feel your theory shells are stapled to the back of your NC or a way out every time in the 1AR, you will not be very happy with your speaks.

I won't buy things like "The Affirmative must run a plan" or "The Affirmative Must Defend a Conditional Advocacy". RVIs are legit.

Policy-esque Argumentation/LARPing
I think my odd guilty pleasure of debate that literally contradicts everything everyone knows about me is that I honestly like a good LARP. I don't mind it at least. The earlier you weigh, the better. Be as specific as possible. Lots of comparative weighing, especially with specific references to certain cards. I honestly do not care how you approach a LARP, so long as you do the proper work necessary. I will be very receptive to theoretical justifications made on why multiple conditional counterplans are a bad thing, because that's a pretty stupid strategy in the first place.

Kritiks/Critical Positions
My favorite! I ran critical positions very, very often and that's because I genuinely had fun doing so. I will be honest, I do not sit down reading Schopenhauer (props to Rebar)  and deep meta lit for fun. If you're going to run a K, you will have to be very explicit and clear in making sure I understand what your advocacy is and its relation to the topic. By all means, go for a 7 minute K if you feel that's something you're good at. I reward those who take very risky strategies. I hate this idea that we should all just reject skepticism because it's a cop-out; it's still an argument in my eyes. That does not mean I like the argument, but I feel many debaters who can genuinely execute the position well are often discouraged. Moreover, I'll be more receptive to epistemic skepticism than you are normally used to.

Micropolitical Positions
If there is one time where I would feel more comfortable intervening than any other time, it would probably have to do with some micropolitical position. I will never flat out reject the argument that you make, but I will have a very, very, very low threshold depending on your advocacy. My problem with many micropol strats is that they literally reaffirm some of the false dichotomies that were trying to be rectified. I love reading stuff on cultural Anthropology, and I am familiar with some of the premises that exist. Consequently, I naturally become more critical of positions that literally try to categorize others. I'm sorry there is no clear metric as of to how I will evaluate micropolitical positions, but I can tell you that I will do my best to be as sensitive as possible and adjudicate accordingly. However, if I feel that your position is not one that I will endorse if it comes down to a role of the ballot story which forces me to intervene, then I will not vote for it. I really enjoy listening to these positions, but sometimes they make me cringe.

Framework
Give me some type of clear decision calculus. I don't care whether it's a standard, burden structure, whatever. Just make sure there is one. I will not just weigh floating offense if I have no clue what I am to do with it.

Speaker Points
I will step into the round with each of you at a 27.5/28, and you make your way up and down from there. If you do really well, you'll be getting a 29-30. If you're above average, 28.5 is your spot. If you get a 25 or lower, you really made me upset.

"How do I get a 30?" There is obviously no simple answer to this question. However, I reward debaters that I genuinely enjoyed watching and performed well. Below is a list of just some of the few things that would put you on my good side:

-Starcraft/Diablo jokes. -Screaming YOLO in the middle of your speech, ESPECIALLY if you're behind in the round. Just do it regardless. -Being clear. -Making interesting arguments. -Not being a jerk or a tool. -Taking risky strategies. -Utilizing CX very well. -Great weighing. -Making smart choices strategically. -Being funny.

Have fun d00dz and d003ettz.