Ethan Rahman ParadigmLast changed 11/8 10:49A CDT
I debated for Barrington High School for four years primarily on the national circuit. Currently I debate NFA-LD for the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
K debaters: 1
Theory/ T debaters: 2-3
Framework debaters: 2-3 (you should be fine as long as it's not too complicated)
Generic circuit: 2-3
Speaker Point Distribution:
30: You can break at TOC
30 to 29.5: You can win the tournament
29.5 to 28.5: You can break at the tournament
28.5 to 28: No major flaws, maybe some minor issues
28 to 27: Some major mistakes or you made the round horribly unclear
27 and under: Lots of major mistakes or you did something that offended me.
Short: I consider myself to be pretty tab. I'm fine with any arguments as long as they're properly warranted. If you get me as a judge I have two pieces of advice for you. 1) Be entertaining. I love creative arguments and generally good speaking skills. keep me engaged in the debate. 2) Make me do as little work as possible. If you force me to do weighing for you or you make no attempt at clashing with your opponent's case you can expect lower speaks at a minimum.
As long as you're clear, speed is fine (I will say "clear" 3 times before I just stop flowing). Please please slow down for tags, author names, and any plan/ cp texts.
Kritiks: I primarily debated Ks in high school. I prefer Ks with actual policy alternatives but I'm cool with anything. I expect to see a ROTB or at least some kind of framework to evaluate the round. Err on the side of over explaining arguments. If you have some sorta wacky kritikal position, I personally love those. I dislike so called "high theory kritiks".
Policy Arguments: These types of debates have become my favorite to evaluate. Impact calculus is extremely important to me. I didn't LARP much in highschool but in college I've done it a ton.
Theory: I really love creative interps, even if they're wacky. If I've never heard your interp before, then that's probably a good sign. I like unconventional voters other than fairness or education. That being said, I probably wont like you very much if you read your generic theory backfile that was written four years ago.
I default to competing interps. Offensive counter interps require an RVI. You need to explicitly justify why your voter is a reason to drop the debater or I'll default to drop the arg. Also for the love of god don't be a dick and combine completely unrelated planks into a single interp. That's just annoying and makes things difficult to evaluate.
Topicality: I love a good T debate, and generally think that T debates are of higher quality than most theory debates. I have a slightly higher threshold for RVIs on T. When justifying RVI's, please make arguments that are specific to T. I will find these arguments much more persuasive than generic RVI arguments.
Framework: I was a framework debater in the earlier parts of my career. I'm mostly familiar with Kantian philosophers, but I should be able to evaluate most philosophies as long as it's not super complicated. I think that the risk of your framework being true should factored into the impact calc debate.
Tricks/ Spikes: I strongly dislike this debate style. If you really really must read these types of cases in front of me, you have to go slow and explicitly number each argument.
- Theory vs K: I think these arguments are hard to evaluate. I'm slightly biased in favor of the K in this debate.
- Disclosure: I think disclosure is a good practice and I'm willing to vote on disclosure theory.
- Cross Examination: If you get a dope concession in CX, please indicate that by saying something like "Yo Ethan, that last part was important please remember that during the next speech". That would be greatly helpful.
- Malthus isn't a real economist.
If you have any questions, the best way to contact me is through facebook. If that doesn't work for you, try emailing me at email@example.com. I'd be happy to answer any questions.