Levon Ghanimian ParadigmLast changed 2/13 9:17A PDT
Background: I competed in LD Debate with Granada Hills Charter High School, and now in college, I compete in Policy Debate with California State University, Northridge. I'm familiar with Parli and Pofo as well since I've done several tournaments in both. I'm a pretty easy going judge that will be fine with most arguments you decide to run. Debate is supposed to be a fun learning experience and I intend to create that environment when I judge. With that being said, don't be afraid to run risky arguments or unconventional cases. If you need any clarifications of my paradigms before the round, don't hesitate to ask me.
Yes, I'd like to be included in the e-mail chain. My e-mail is firstname.lastname@example.org
- I evaluate as a quasi-Tabula Rasa. No one is perfectly unbiased, but I do my best to not intervene.
- Almost always Tech>Truth.
- No racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, transphobic, etc. arguments
- Organization is key.
- If you're running genocide as an impact, please LOGICALLY link to it. In other words, don't hyperbolize your impacts by just claiming genocide. It WILL tick me off.
- Real Genocides actually happening in the squo and that have happened (Use this as a guide if you're not sure what qualifies as genocide): Darfurian, Myanmar, Yemeni, Kurdish, Rwandan, Armenian, Cambodian
If you're here for PF, my paradigm is towards the bottom.
Framework (Traditional): Values are the most important part for me in LD. I absolutely love philosophy and will be accepting of almost any values you decide to run. With that said, make sure your arguments are warranted. I want you to clearly show me the link, don't expect me to link it for you or make your arguments for you. I only flow what has been said in the round. I will usually vote off of the values rather than contention level debate, but that doesn't mean I believe that evidence is useless or unimportant. My main focus in Values is the VC. Please actually have some clash in the VC and make the round fun. I've gotten bored from hearing the good ol' Morality+Util FW. Hey, it works, it's easy, and it's mainstream; I get it. If you've decided that you want to try a new FW, or that you're not sure if you want to be a bit risky, I'm the judge for you.
- I'll virtually vote on any framework and ROTB.
- Please warrant your framing WELL and link back to it.
- I expect framing to be extended throughout the speech if you're planning on winning off of it.
- Actually ask questions in CX
- CX is a speech, not prep time
- Don't be rude
- Ran a lot of these and vote off of these often.
- Make your links for me PLEASE.
- Please explain your warrants clearly and guide me through the link story.
- I usually only ran T, Spec, and Framework and vote off of them often
- Never dabbled in frivolous theory and I rarely vote off of it. I have a low threshold for friv theory.
- I will get annoyed if you're using these as an easy win rather than actually calling out your opponent for something.
- I've literally only voted off of tricks once. ('Twas a painful ballot to input)
- Why do they exist?
- Try actually engaging in the debate rather than weaseling your way out of it. (You can @ me, it won't change my mind on these)
- Primarily ran these and often vote off of them.
- K's I've run: Heidegger, Dialectical Materialism/HMA/Orthodox Marxism, Gendered Language, Genocide Trivialization, Ableism, Generic Cap, Neolib, Security and Ecofem.
- Be clear in your links. (I always love a good link story)
- Be clear in your alt and how you actually solve.
- PLEASE ACTUALLY BE FAMILIAR WITH YOUR PHIL. NOTHING BOTHERS ME MORE THAN A DEBATER WHO CONFIDENTLY PRESENTS THEIR K AND COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETS IT IN LATER SPEECHES.
- Ran these a lot and have voted off of them.
- Please be prepared for TVA args and FW args.
- If you're going to perm a K or another adovcacy, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR PERM CLEARLY AND HOW IT WOULD INTERACT WITH THE K.
- Occasionally ran these, but easily vote off of them.
- Net benefit, net benefit, net benefit.
- Clearly explain your solvency mechanism.
-A. PERM. IS. NOT. AN. ADVOCACY.
- I'm fine with spreading.
- Slow down for taglines and sources so I can clearly flow it down.
-If you start to get incomprehensible, I'll say, "clear."
-Make sure your opponent is ok with spreading. If they aren't, DON'T SPREAD.
I genuinely enjoy judging Public Forum rounds as they deal with tangible impacts with relevant resolutions. I learn something from PF after every tournament. The style of speech in PF is also a nice break from hearing students drill words into your head at 500 wpm.
Framework: I would like for the debaters to provide a framework, even if very short, to give me a weighing mechanism in round. As a judge, I want to be told how to vote, I want to be guided by the debaters. Without a proper framework, a lot of arguments are left up in the air in terms of my ability to weigh them on the ballot. I'm usually ok with any framework you decide to run, as long as they're not abusive. If no FW is provided I will default to cost-benefit analysis and do my best as a judge to use that as a heuristic with the arguments you've provided me.
Crossfire: See Cross Ex in the section above
Summary and Final Focus: I expect all impacts that YOU EXPECT TO WIN OFF OF to be extended into the Summary and Final Focus speeches. I will not make extensions for you. Extensions should also be longer than a blippy one-liner. They should tell me WHY they matter at the end of the day. If you expect to win off of a drop, it should be extended with a warrant as well.
Policy Stuff in PF:
I like to say that I'm not ok with spreading, CP's, DA's and K's in PF but most debaters won't read this paradigm anyway since debate is no longer an event of adaptation and judge persuasion. If you so choose to run these arguments I expect them to be VERY WELL warranted. If you're running theory, your opponent should genuinely be abusive. If you're running a CP, you need to CLEARLY show me why you have net benefit. If you're running a DA, I need you to CLEARLY AND CAREFULLY walk me through the links. If you're running a K, PLEASE BE VERY FAMILIAR WITH YOUR PHILOSOPHY. I would rather that you not run these arguments, but I will evaluate them if I have to.