Levon Ghanimian ParadigmLast changed 10/9 12:00P PDT
Yes, I would like to be included in the email chain: email@example.com
High School: LD with Granada Hills Charter
College: Policy with California State University, Northridge
Coaching: Traditional and Circuit LD at Granada Hills Charter, Public Forum at Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy
I competed exclusively in Traditional LD in high school and gained all of my progressive/circuit debate knowledge from policy. I began as a Traditional/Larp debater in policy and ended up debating Kritiks. When I judge, I aim to take in the entire round into context. This means that I want you to link all of the arguments that you make back to your thesis throughout the entire debate. This doesn't mean I won't take individual concessions or drops into account, but I expect them to be tied into your entire argument. I'm almost always tech>truth, but I've been moving in a more techy-truth direction. I'm fine with any argument you decide to run as long as it's well warranted. I've realized that saying I won't vote off an argument is detrimental to education. If you have any general questions, please don't hesitate to email me or ask before round.
FW and T: If you're running a FW arg, tell me exactly how the shift in FW or a specific FW position is key. For example, why is it necessary that we embrace the FW of deconstructing Neocolonialism in the debate round? How does that shift in FW actually work to combat Neolcolonialism. Why is this conversation necessary? In addition to topicality arguments, I'll vote off of ASpec and MechSpec. I'm also willing to vote off of arguments that challenge the validity of the resolution. All interps and counterinterps need to be explained and warranted clearly.
Kritik: I love K debate. I am most familiar with the varieties of Cap: HMA/Orthodox Marx/Neolib. I've dabbled in some performance with Genocide Trivialization. I absolutely love performance Kritiks, but don't just run a performance for the sake of running it. I believe that there needs to be a solid thesis that your performance is connected to so it can generate some sort of offense in the round. For all Kritiks, performative and non performative, a role of the ballot is imperative. If you're going to run some high theory stuff: Zizek, Heidegger, Agamben, Lacan, Deleuze & Guattari, etc., I need you to explain it to me like I'm five. In other words, tell me how it interacts with the resolution and guide me through your link story step by step. I've also been recently interested in identity politics, so go for it. I'm cool with K affs.
CP: Please explain how you have net benefit. Don't drop the perm.
DA: Explain your link story to me CLEARLY. Make your links to your impacts FOR ME. I will not do your link work for you.
Speed: I'm fine with speed, but slow down for analytics. If your opponent is not okay with spreading, DON'T spread. I'll say CLEAR or SLOW if need be.
Public Forum: I vote off of a general offense/defense paradigm and use cost/benefit framework. However, I am MORE THAN HAPPY to have another FW in round. I expect arguments to be extended through summary to final focus if you intend on winning off of them. I don't have specific preferences for PF besides these, so if you have questions, don't hesitate to ask.