Baraa Alkhani ParadigmLast changed 12/7 2:55P CDT
Hi! My name's Baraa Alkhani, I debated in LD for 3 years at Stagg High School and was the 2018 IHSA state champion. I debated traditionally and never went to the NatCircuit. Though, by Illinois standards, I guess you can say I was a bit progressive in that I valued cards and was a bit faster as a debater.
The round's yours and I want to analyze it through the weighing mechanisms you provide for me. With that said, be sure to clearly articulate what you want me to analyze so I can do it. If you don't give me a weighing mechanism, then I may have to draw the connections myself, and that might not be to your advantage. I agree with Zachary Mellow, so I'll quote him here, "To me, the value debate isn't as important as it is to a lot of other judges. If you have the same or even a similar value to your opponent, do not spend too much time clashing at the value level if there's nothing to clash about. For example, if your value is morality and your opponent's is justice but you define them in similar ways, to me that doesn't mean there is a need for clash. But if your values are different and you think it's important to distinguish this difference, then, by all means, spend time on the value debate. Moreover, the value criterion debate is substantially more important, as it dictates through what lens I will be weighing impacts from the contention level in the round. On the contention level debate, make sure you're explaining clearly why your impacts outweigh your opponent's, and also make sure to link them back to the value criterion debate."
Speed is fine, per traditional standards, but if you start spreading like on the NatCircuit, I'll just give up on flowing it. I usually flow on paper, but sometimes on a computer. So if you see me switch up from time to time don't worry because I'll always flow. Be sure to be clear and signpost effectively so that I know where you are on the flow. If I don't catch something, it's probably your fault. Sorry.
I analyze the flow holistically, meaning you should establish a clear framework and then link back your contentions and impacts through that framework. If an argument is dropped be sure to call it out in your next speech and then I'll take it into consideration on the flow. You can extend cards, but that's not always necessary, but be sure to EXPLAIN IT if you do. Don't say, "Extend the New York Times analysis," and then move on cause that's not a real extension. You're better off extending 1 card and impacting it than 20 with no real elaboration.
I love clash and debate on the warrants and contention levels. Numerous responses, weighing, turns, nonuniqueness, risk of offense, impact calculus, comparative analyses, etc. I love to see. Fill up your rebuttal with meaningful attacks and defense and the ballot will write itself.
Finally, as I've learned through my experiences, have fun. If I give you the L, it's not the end of the world. Trust me it doesn't mean I hate you. Rather, it means that you can still learn and improve in your journey as a debater. Same with if you win. Always strive to improve your game, your speaking, and case writing. If you choose to be complacent with how you're doing, you'll never get to the next level where you want to be.
Be respectful, professional, and confident. I'm pretty outgoing so never hesitate to ask me questions or reach out to me at a tournament. If something here hasn't been addressed, then ask me prior to the round :)