Makani,+Shayan

I debated for four years in Carrollton (TX) at Hebron High School (2003-2007) and then attended Baylor University (2007-2011) in Waco (TX). In high school, I spent most of my time debating on the TOC/TFA circuit.
 * __ Background: __**

Since I don’t currently coach and I did not work at a camp this summer, I am not familiar with the topic yet, so some common cases, disadvantages, counterplans, and topicality arguments may seem a lot more familiar to you than they will to me. Just keep that in mind as it may affect some of your arguments. For example, on topicality, I may not immediately understand your “community consensus” arguments. Similarly, on issues of predictability regarding counterplan theory, I might be oblivious to what are commonly accepted strategies against a particular case. What all of this means is that you should provide a little extra explanation on certain arguments, especially early on in the season (August-October).
 * __ Judging Experience: __**

I would like to consider myself “tabula rasa.” I will vote on practically anything so long as you win it. To the degree that everyone has some preferences or biases based on experiences, etc., I have tried to specifically clarify them below. It is worth noting that I default to an offense/defense paradigm, but I am more than willing to consider alternative frameworks if you offer them.
 * __ Paradigm: __**

So long as you’re clear, speed is not a problem. If you’re not clear, I will verbally warn you at least twice during your speech. After the second warning, I will assume you either can’t be clearer or are choosing not to, and I will deduct speaker points accordingly.
 * __ Speed: __**

I flow fairly traditionally. I believe that a well-formulated argument traditionally has three parts: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. In addition to noting the tags, I will try to jot down the warrants from your evidence as well. I believe this makes for a better and more thorough judging experience. To do this, I need you to emphasize the warrants or perhaps slow down just a bit on the key parts of a card. Again, this sort of thing will be rewarded with speaker points. I usually like to use my laptop, but I may make some important notes on paper regarding cards to look at following the round.
 * __ Flowing: __**

Good cross-examination questions and answers will earn you higher speaker points. Be forceful and ask pointed questions, but be careful not to cross the line into arrogant or rude. CX periods are not only for clarification. They can be used to bring important arguments to the forefront of the debate, so that advantage of that. I don’t usually flow cross-examination periods, but if I think there’s something important mentioned, such as the definition of “dispositionality,” a team’s understanding of “fiat,” etc., I may make a note.
 * __ Cross-Examination Periods: __**

Most tournaments I’ve judged at still utilize a traditional 30-point scale. Here’s my usual breakdown:
 * __ Speaker points: __**

30 – Perfect. All of your speeches were flawless. I have no suggestions for improvement. 29.5 – Excellent. All of your speeches were near perfect. At this level, I believe you are likely in the top 5% of all speakers at the tournament and are thus deserving of a speaker award. 29 – Very good. At this level, I believe you are likely in the top 10% of all speakers at the tournament and are thus deserving of a speaker award. 28.5 – Above average. At this level, I believe you are likely in the top 20% of all speakers at the tournament. 28 – Slightly above average. 27.5 – Average. 27 – Slightly below average. 26.5 – Below average. 26 – Significantly below average. 25.5 – Bad. <25 – Reserved for clipping cards, other forms of cheating, extreme rudeness, etc.

This gives me 11 possible gradients to rate your speaking, although I’ve never assigned the highest (30) possible score or the lowest (<25). I take speaker points seriously, as it your only way to determine how well you did as an individually in a particular round. Also, good debaters, whether that is because of their strategy, delivery, etc., deserve to be rewarded individually, and speaker points are the only way to do that.

This was my favorite type of argument when I was a debater, and because of my deeper understanding of it, I will judge you by a higher standard. The upside is that I am very open to voting on practically any theory argument. I will also reward you generously with speaker points if you go for or defend theory well, as I believe it is very difficult to do so.
 * __ Theory: __**

Since it is similar to theory, I really enjoy a good topicality debate. I think there are multiple parts that need clear explanation if you plan to extend topicality well. These include the interpretation(s), violation(s), standard(s), impact(s), framework(s), and potential external issues. Predictability, limits, etc. are standards to judge competing interpretations. Education, abuse, etc. are impacts. Competing interpretations, reasonability, etc. are frameworks. External issues that you might be able to “go for” alone include effects topicality, extra topicality, etc. Like I mentioned earlier, I do not have much experience with this topic, so please be extra mindful of explaining your topicality arguments well. If you want to “go for” topicality in the 2NR, it should probably take all five minutes.
 * __ Topicality: __**

Disadvantages with specific links are the best. Again, it shows a solid strategy and a good grasp of the case. A well-researched and recently-updated politics disadvantage is still one of my favorite arguments. Generally, I believe that if you control uniqueness, then you control the direction of the link. That sort of argument becomes very valuable in terms of evaluating the risk of the disadvantage in a world of a competitive counterplan. Furthermore, in such a world, please specifically explain how the net-benefits (disadvantage[s]) outweigh solvency deficits. Against a case with multiple advantages and the possibility of add-ons, I think it’s difficult to win on a disadvantage alone. It can be done, but it will likely require add-on impact scenarios, very clear impact analysis (magnitude, timeframe, probability), a high likelihood for a specific link, and perhaps arguments as to why it turns the case. Perhaps coupling a disadvantage with some case arguments, especially offensive ones, or at least defense against the impacts, would make such a strategy more viable.
 * __ Disadvantages: __**

Specific PICs are good. So long as you are either able defend the theory behind a counterplan or the Affirmative refuses to contest it, I don’t see a problem with running generic agent or process counterplans, either. I believe that it helps you tremendously if your net-benefits outweigh potential solvency deficits to the counterplan. I do have some opinions regarding different types of counterplans, but I can certainly be convinced otherwise. I believe it is easier to win that consult, process, etc. counterplans are more illegitimate than they are legitimate. Similarly, conditionality, multiple competing worlds, etc. are probably abusive. However, dispositionality, PICs, etc. can be easily defended. I think that the theoretical debate regarding functional and textual competition is unfortunately ignored all too often, usually to the loss of the affirmative.
 * __ Counterplans: __**

I have no problems with kritikal debate. I would actually consider myself a better judge for a really close or complicated kritikal debate than a similarly close or complicated policy debate. I’m more familiar with kritiks of power, economics, and international relations (Foucault, Agamben, Zizek, etc.), than I am with kritiks of psychology (Deleuze & Guattari, Lacan, Baudrillard, etc.), so please explain the latter more thoroughly. I don’t have much experience judging performance or other very non-traditional sorts of arguments, but I’m open to hearing them.
 * __ Kritiks: __**

While most teams are usually able to draw a link, they sometimes lack specific explanation, so please be mindful of that. Generally, I prefer that specific link explanations begin to come out as early as possible. One way I like to do this is construct a flexible 1NC shell in which you can not only change out cards, but also alter the tags of your evidence to directly respond to the 1AC. These sorts of minor things show a very polished strategy, which I will in turn reward with speaking points. Even if you’re running a very generic kritik (capitalism, nuclearism, statism, etc.), it is possible to draw links from the opposing team’s cards. Use quotes from their evidence and refer to their authors by name.

Moreover, the impact and alternative, if there is one, needs to be explained even more thoroughly than the links, as these parts of the argument are more difficult to win. How does the kritik “outweigh” the impacts of the case? What is the role of the ballot? Does the alternative “solve” the case? Does it instead “solve” the root cause? Perhaps it’s impossible to “solve” the case, or maybe it shouldn’t even matter. All of these sorts of arguments need to be explained and impacted. You can utilize framework as a very valuable tool for framing your impacts and alternative(s).

I think framework can play a huge role in answering or winning a kritik. Alternatives usually don’t “solve” the case, making your 1AC a disadvantage. Even if they do, you can win timeframe arguments that I can evaluate heavily against the alternative if you are able to win the framework debate. Similarly, I think the team running a kritik should have a clear explanation of their framework and how it relates to the role of the ballot.

Debating an affirmative on their case is difficult and requires significant research to do well. It is unfortunately a lost art. However, it can be very effective. Case turns can be coupled with disadvantages for a solid strategy. Reading impact defense helps bolster your responses to counterplan solvency deficits and kritik alternatives. Inherency and significance arguments probably aren’t the most convincing, but they can play a part in a larger strategy. Lastly, don’t shy away from making analytic arguments. Not everything requires evidence. Call the team out on unqualified authors, missing internal links, mistagged or warrantless evidence, etc.
 * __ Case: __**

Debate was one of the most fulfilling, competitive, and educational opportunities in which I ever participated. I hope you feel the same way. Despite the long hours of research, traveling to tournaments, waking up early and going to bed late, etc., it will be over before you know it. If you loved it as much as I did, you will miss it tremendously. Enjoy it while you can!
 * __ Conclusion: __**