Ghandour,+Maha

Maha Ghandour Sammamish High School ‘13 Cornell University ‘17 Speed is fine. All arguments need to be clearly linked to some kind of framework. I’m fine with any framework as long as you explain it. Theory is fine if there is a clear violation and abuse story aka your speaks will suffer if its really unnecessary and underdeveloped. The easiest thing you can do to win the ballot and up your speaker points is spending time weighing your arguments, linking them clearly to your standard and show how they interact with your opponent's arguments. You shouldn't leave that work for me to do because it can turn out bad for you (and I'm lazy so I'm going to find the cleanest way out).
 * Conflicts: Sammamish **
 * Short Version **

I debated 3 years at Sammamish the last two on the national circuit and stayed active on the Washington circuit was well.
 * Long Version **
 * Background In Debate **

As a debater I was fine with most people's speed. I will be flowing on my computer as well so I don’t see speed being that big of an issue. That being said that does not mean that you should EVER sacrifice clarity for the sake of squeezing in another argument. If I have any issues with how you’re speaking, I’ll say clear or slow.
 * Speed / Clarity **

I’m fine with all frameworks if you explain it. If your framework is really philosophically dense, make sure you take extra time to slow down and make sure I understand it. I rarely ran util as a debater but I’m totally fine adjudicating it.
 * Framework **

For extensions just make sure you extend the claim, warrant and implication, nothing out of ordinary. If the argument is dropped I’m really lax the extension. __PLEASE__ make sure that you are spending time comparing and weighing your arguments. Also, don’t try to extend an argument with out responding to your opponent’s argument.
 * Extensions **

I wasn’t the best theory debater, so im not sure how great I will be at adjudicating it. I see debate as an educational activity and therefore I evaluate theory as reasonability; if it’s ridiculous (must read a plan, must number all arguments act.) I’ll have a really hard time voting for it even if you win the line by line. But still read both offensive and defensive arguments on the shell. I default to theory not being an RVI unless you justify it. I prefer debates on substance but if there is abuse (or potential abuse that actually hinders you) in the round, I’m open to a theory debate.
 * Theory/Topicality **

I don’t really like K’s. I’m not really familiar with a lot of the literature. If you want to run a K, make sure it links to a framework (and explain that framework well). Slow it down, and actually explain the warrants instead of simply reading your Butler or your Foucault card.
 * K’s **

I’m open to presumption arguments just justify them. Just win offense. Presumption should be your last resort, not you’re a-strat.
 * Presumption **

I’m fine on voting on them if you warrant every part of the ballot story. I find the trickiest part and quite often the worst justified part is the role of the ballot, so make sure to win that.
 * Micropolitical Positions **

I’ll try to set my baseline at 28.5 for a debater that I believe should be in outrounds,I think that’s pretty standard. I’ll try not to tank your speaks but I will lower them if you do stuff on the list below. - Weigh - Provide a clear ballot story - Lie in Cross-X - Being shady in Cross-X - Advocacy Shifts - No Signposting - Frivolous theory - Disrespecting your opponent - Reading miscut evidence
 * Speaker Points **
 * How to get good speaker points **
 * How to get bad speaker points **
 * I wont vote on any blatantly offensive argument, and your speaks will be dropped. **


 * Feel free to ask me any questions before the round and make sure to have fun **** J **

(fyi, a lot of this is taken from Karan Das Grande’s paradigm)