Aroog Khaliq ParadigmLast changed 9/28 8:39P CDT
Email chain: email@example.com
I am a sophomore at KU (majoring in english and psychology). I debated at Blue Valley West HS (KS) for four years, three of those years being in the DCI/Varsity division. I am not debating in college, although I occasionally judge HS debate. I've judged 0 policy rounds on the 2018-19 topic.
Speed: I have auditory processing difficulties. Be cognizant of that. If you are not clear, I will not be able to flow you. I want to be able to hear the words in the cards, and prefer that you go slower on tags. I'm a fan of a slower, more persuasive rebuttal.
Speaker Points: If you are rude and/or discriminatory, your speaks will suffer for it. Send me speech docs, because I am strict about clipping; if you clip, I will drop you with minimum speaks. Don't steal prep (everyone can tell when you do).
Philosophy: I don't have an ideological preference, and I will vote how you to tell me to vote (so be sure to articulate that). Impact framing/calculus is really important in how I evaluate the round. I think tech > truth.
We're all here to have a good time, so act like it and be respectful :)
Neg: I evaluate the link first. Articulate the link well and give me impact calculus and turns case arguments early on in the debate. Pull through to the 2NR and develop the argument so when I'm evaluating the risk it's clear-cut. I'm not the biggest fan of politics DAs but I will listen to almost anything, so if you're going to go for it, give me a solid link and do the most with what I outlined above.
Aff: Come through with case outweighs and turns the DA arguments and gut the link. Explain why you outweigh and where the DA fails. Kill the link and it will be easy for me to decide who wins the DA.
Neg: Read whatever you want as long as 1) you can answer applicable theory arguments well and 2) there's a legitimate net benefit attached (no, "CP solves better" does not count). Slow down on long CP texts and don't forget to hammer in why sufficiency > 1% risk of a solvency deficit.
Aff: If you're going for "XYZ type of CP is cheating" be ready to articulate how they're cheating, why I care, what ground you lost, etc. because I'm not doing the work for you there.
My favorite argument (so don't mess it up). Spend time here, specify what your interpretation does for the round and how this affects affs that can/'t be read and why they should/'nt be allowed. Give impacts and explain why yours should be evaluated over theirs. I usually default to competing interps but if your reasoning is good enough, I can be persuaded to evaluate under the lens of reasonability. A well-done 5 minute rebuttal on T will probably move me to tears and boost your speaks, so take from that what you will.
2 conditional advocacies is pretty standard; beyond 3, I can be swayed towards condo bad. You're probably not going to win without an interpretation and specific instances of in-round abuse. If this is bleeding into the 2AR, spend a full 5 minutes on it. Not really a fan of other theory arguments (most of them are reasons to reject the argument, not the team), but if you're following the above guidelines, I will weigh them.
K debates are fun! I read Cap in high school and am familiar with the lit. I am not really into framework debates (I usually went for cap against planless affs), so if you're a planless aff I'm not the best judge for you.
With any K, I need good link and impact articulation (links of omission are not going to persuade me), and you must flesh out the alt.
You will not persuade me with "Ks are cheating." Go for alt indicts and link turns. Make sure you can 1) explain why your perms are legitimate and 2) defend your mode of political action (don't give me generic "state good" cards; tell me why the state specifically is key to combating racism, misogyny, etc.).
Like Titus from Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, I am prone to face journeys, so you will definitely know if I'm lost; remedy that, or we will both have a bad time.
Full Judging Record
|Blue Valley Southwest Invitational||1538164800 9/28/2018||6 R6||SME LU||BVN AH||Neg|
|Blue Valley Southwest Invitational||1538164800 9/28/2018||5 R5||LawFre GH||BVN FV||Aff|
|KCKSNCFL Policy Qualifier||1512163800 12/1/2017||Var||5 R5||BVN Indiveri & Lucas||SMNW Kuffour & Osei||Aff||Neg on a 2-1|
|KCKSNCFL Policy Qualifier||1512163800 12/1/2017||Var||3 R3||Emporia Persinger & Harmon||BVN Mendelson & McMahon||Neg||Neg on a 3-0|
|KCKSNCFL Policy Qualifier||1512163800 12/1/2017||Var||2 R2||Lans Butler & Wong||MilVal Crain & Gothard||Aff||Aff on a 3-0|
|KCKSNCFL Policy Qualifier||1512163800 12/1/2017||Var||1 R1||ShaMis Rodriguez-Hanley & Colvin||Empori Velo & Garcia||Aff||Aff on a 3-0|