Ahsan,+Fasih

Fasih Ahsan

Chaminade CP HS (2011-2016) UCLA Microbiology Immunology and Molecular Genetics '15 Granada Hills Charter HS '11

Background: I competed in LD Debate for 4 years both locally and nationally. I helped coach the Chaminade CP HS Debate Team from 2011-2016. I primarily work as a laboratory manager at UCLA.

====HW/DebateLA Update 01/11/2016: I have been involved in debate less this year than in previously years. As such, I would not recommend you assume that I have an extensive knowledge on common topic lit, and that elaborating more to expand your args may be necessary. I have judged infrequently on the circuit this year as well, so I would recommend that you start a bit slower (at the very least, slow for tags and cites), and expand on common argument trends. I've made some updates (in bold) as well that you can read below.==== DAMUS UPDATE 11/3/15: I have not coached or read lit on the jury null topic. Don't assume that I have an extensive common topic lit knowledge, you might have to elaborate more for me to expand out your arguments. Additionally, I have not judged on the circuit in a while, you will probably need to start slower, and I can't guarantee that I'm up to date with common argument trends. NDCA UPDATE 03/27/2014: I admittedly haven't coached very much on the living wage topic. As such, don't assume that I have an extensive common topic lit knowledge; you might have to do a bit more work on fleshing out your args.
 * Update 4/8/18: I am no longer involved in debate, but may sporadically judge at tournaments. I would not recommend you assume that I have extensive knowledge on topic lit or strategies.**

Lincoln Douglas Debate:
General Paradigm: I am receptive to any and all **non-degrading or non-offensive** arguments and ballot stories, provided your arguments/justifications are warranted in some manner. I will not vote for any argument or strategy that lacks well-defined warrants and impacts. This applies in all situations. For example, if you kick everything in your 2AR and go for an underdeveloped presumption argument that you said in your AC without any reasoning whatsoever, I won't grant it any credence. **To put it simply: I will vote for ANYTHING that is logically explained and well justified.**

Speed: Fine, **but clarity is important since I've been out of the game for a bit.** Please be clear and try to enunciate confusing words or phrases (ex. slow down for your cites). I will yell "clear" twice to warn you, and then dock speaks thereafter. I haven't had to do this yet, so you should be fine in general.

Theory: Make the argument on competing interps or reasonability (and drop the debater/argument), I won't default for you. Make your internal links to the voter specific, and make your preempts clear at the bottom of the shell. If you want me to vote on an RVI, do the work in your rebuttal on why an RVI should be granted (i.e. why theory is also a reverse voting issue, what your opponent did to warrant the theory debate becoming an RVI, etc.). **Your theory preempts in your underviews need to have an explanation or justification -- a blippy flex argument won't cut it.**

Topicality: **I am probably not the best judge on these debates, especially in sifting through muddled standards-level flows.** This probably applies to theory level args as well. You will need to make the argument on whether topicality comes pre-standard.

Kritiks/Micro-politics: Clearly explain why the kritik/your position comes before all other layers in the round. Make the role of the ballot story and the impact calc/alternative clear.

Plans/CPs: Please slow down for the plan text so I can write it down. I really enjoy good, clear impact calc on these debates; do it well and you will get good speaks.

DAs: Please make the uniqueness/links/internal links clear. Extremely unclear DAs (especially in the case of politics or tradeoffs scenarios) in which you're trying to hide the link or are trying to obfuscate the uniqueness will be frowned upon.

Weighing: The more weighing between competing arguments and layers in the debate you do (especially if you preemptively do it in your constructives) will give you immensely high speaks. This is the one part of debate that most people lack; laying out the decision calculus is extremely critical to you winning the round.

Framing/Decision Calc: Please start your rebuttals off with a clear overview, I appreciate it when a debater gives a breakdown of the decision calc/how to the round is going to be framed before hitting the meat of the args. This is key when collapsing down to the decision calc in your later speeches.

Cross-X: Is binding. I'll listen to it and flow anything interesting. I'll allow using CX time for prep or flex prep, but doing a good job in CX will give you higher speaks.

Speaks: I'll average between 27-29.5. Argument comparison, good overview structure, speaking ability, and quality of weighing will get you higher speaks. Poor argument interaction, poor speaking, and messy/unclear debating will result in lower speaks. Rudeness & unnecessary vulgarity will give you a 25.

Good luck.

Policy Debate:
I have never debated policy in high school, and I have no background in coaching and judging policy. I competed in a more progressive style of LD, with a lot of CX crossover (speed, tech, theory, Ks, CPs, DAs, strat), so you can look over my above paradigm to get a general idea about how I evaluate those kinds of arguments.

I'm tab, but I will adjucate rounds under a policy-making paradigm when said perspective becomes apparent in round.

In addition to the rather comprehensive (and long, sorry about that) paradigm that I have above, here is a general list of very specific things/criteria I want to see when evaluating a round:

-**CLASH YOUR OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT DIRECTLY:** Don't just stand up in the 2A or 2N and read a gigantic frontline dump of evidence against a certain advantange or off case position without specifying the internal warrant that your arguments are taking out. I've seen plenty an elim round where Affs would just read off 10 pieces of evidence to counter a Space Debris Disad link, and the Neg just simply extended through the links, because the arguments were NON-RESPONSIVE to theirs. It's all fair and well that you are super prepped out to beat off the argument on a more general basis, but if your arguments can't specifically clash and take out the opponents, I'm left with conflicting arguments that have little to no comparative analysis on them, which makes for a messy (and unfavorable for you) evaluation of the argument. -**DO SPECIFIC IMPACT CALC:** So what if you extend an advantage or politics DA cleanly? YOU HAVE TO LINK THE ARGUMENTS THAT YOUR WINNING (including extensions of warrants in specific authored cards), INTO SOME SORT OF WEIGHING CALCULUS FOR ME. Explain to me: 1) What impacts your arguments are linking to (eg Extinction, Nuclear War, existential risk) - This is where you EXPLICITLY NEED to link some sort of extension and warrants/cards in your arguments to the impact. 2) How your arguments outweigh all other arguments that are potentially linking into that impact. 3) Why your impact outweighs all others (and ultimately why that manes I evaluate that impact and its winning arguments above all others). Impact Calc Standards: Specify warrants in the standards that you use! Saying "We outweigh on timeframe: our plan happens earlier" isn't enough analysis for me to buy your arguments and impacts; again, this is where using warrants in evidence is key. Say something along the lines of "We outweigh on magnitude, the Smith 09 evidence explains that a net increase in satellites sent up into space leads to 2.5x greater collisions into Earth, leading to a greater net increase of extinction". Nearly all of the rounds I've seen had rather shoddy impact calc. -**ON CASE ARGUMENTATION**: Negs should devote a good amount of time on on -case arguments that aren't solely pre-read blocks or front lines. Making sick intuitive takeouts and turns on specific arguments and assumptions made in the plan will make it harder for Affs to simply defeat off-case positions and then cleanly extend AC advantages, will make it easier for Negs to garner offense and links into DAs/Ks, and CP net benefits, and will make you more persuasive in front of me as a judge. -**LESS IS MORE!**- Instead of attempting to go like 6-off, and or spreading yourself thin by making 100s of blippy responses to arguments, spend time to developing longer, more qualitative arguments to beat positions. Devoting more time to a smaller amount of off case positions/advantages, and decreasing the levels of debate will make the nuance of debate much more in depth, and will definitively make my adjudication much easier, rather than having to sift through 10 flows to magically pinpoint a conceded link. -**PLEASE FLOW:** I'm not sure if this is a new occurrence due to the rise of paperless debating or something else entirely, but you NEED TO FLOW THE DEBATE. I need to see each of the debaters focusing on flowing the debate down in a detailed manner (whether that be on paper or on excel); rather than just blindly listening for buzz words and copy and pasting frontlines into word docs. -**Rules on Paperless:** I'm cool about paperless; prep time ends when you stop preparing the speech; the time it takes to jump the files from your computer to theirs will not come out of your prep. any computer malfunctions or technical difficulties are okay, and I'll let you fix that within a reasonable amount of time.
 * -EXTEND SPECIFIC CARDS:** Saying "extend the net benefit, the Aff concedes it, therefore we win the CP", is definitely not enough work to win the argument outright. Extend the cards in full (specifically the WARRANTS in the card), and tell me how each card interacts on the broader level of the debate. If you just rattle off names of authors and the taglines you're saying you win off of, I have absolutely no idea how to evaluate those extensions. EXTENDING WARRANTS AND THEIR INTERACTION WITH THE ARGUMENTS IN ROUND WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU WIN THE ROUND.

My views on Theory, Topicality, CPs/DAs/Ks/Performance in CX are the same as in my LD paradigm above. My speaking point scale and views on speed allows applies equally. Have fun, and enjoy your experience as a high school debater!

Public Forum:
With the understanding that PF debate is made to be more focused on rhetorical skill and simple argumentative analysis, I don't expect the same level of technical analysis and policy crossover that I see in LD and Policy. You can read about my advice on weighing and argumentation at the top of my LD paradigm. Most of what I write about argumentation can also be equally applied to PF. A few specific pieces of advice:

-Give me some sort of weighing metric on which I evaluate the round. Define this very specifically for me in the rebuttals. This may prove especially useful to you as a way to limiting the impact or importance of certain arguments the opposing team is putting forth. -Spend your final focus on telling me how I should be writing out my ballot. What is the weighing mechanism for this round? What arguments are you extending and defeating? How do they preclude your opponent's arguments, and why should I evaluate them first? How do they link to some sort of impact, and why does that impact outweigh all others? Why should I be puling the trigger on these specific arguments? How does this prove that you are upholding the weighing mechanism better? - Use your CX advantageously. Instead of pure clarification, use it to create some sort of contradiction or assumption that your case will exploit. CX is binding, and any responses made can be used against you.

My policy on speed and speaker points are the same as above. Most importantly, have fun, and enjoy your experience as a high school debater!