Azzam,+Adam

I debated LD for one year at Lincoln High School (LHS) in Lincoln, NE and graduated in 2008. Since 2009 I have been the assistant debate coach at LHS where I coach LD. I have also been an LD instructor at the Nebraska Debate Institute.

I’m fine with speed provided it’s clear and will yell “clear” otherwise. You’ll get at most two such warnings per constructive, and at most one per rebuttal. I assign speaker points based on how logical and strategic you are during round. This means I won’t dock your speaks if your speaking style (or ability) prevents you from responding to every argument in the round.

I’ll vote on anything provided it’s won on the flow. I think of a debate round like a game, whereby each debater establishes the rules of the game and victory conditions. If I’m not given a way to evaluate the round, then I default to evaluating the round based on who proved the resolution true or false. I’ll vote on theory, but be sure to tell me why I should actually vote on your voters.

I try to not intervene in round. This means I won’t outright reject an unwarranted or counterintuitive argument unless I’m told to do so. Thus, it’s in your best interest to call out your opponent out for poor warrants. However, I do have a high threshold for extensions and prefer that when you make extensions that you refer to the argument and the author.

Although I’m willing to vote on anything, here are my personal tastes. I'm a mathematician, and so I like creative logic-based arguments if they’re made well (negating the antecedent, denying the referent, etc). I’m fine with kritiks, but I prefer kritiks that link to something actually done by your opponent in round (i.e. not just a word in the resolution).