My judging style is most consistent with tabula rasa-style paradigm.

To the extent that the teams cannot agree on judging standards, I probably default to a policy-making model.

My judging style is most consistent with tabula rasa-style paradigm.

To the extent that the teams cannot agree on judging standards, I probably default to a policy-making model.

Cameron Grant (Kansas City, MO) Paradigm -

Background: I debated at Emporia High School (1997-2001) and Southern Illinois University (2001-2004). I have been sporadically involved with the community since graduating college, such as with the NYCUDL for a brief period while I was in law school in New York, and more recently judging high school tournaments for Pembroke Hill in Kansas City. I have practiced as an attorney since 2007.

Paradigm: The following paradigm is adapted from Scott Harris’s paradigm posted to Tabroom 2/17/23. I adapted Dr. Harris's paradigm (without his permission!) because he was one of my favorite judges when I debated.

I will critically evaluate the arguments you make during the debate, and not through any particular lens, e.g., that of a policymaker. My role is to decide who did the better job of debating, and who won the arguments presented in the debate. I am theoretically open to voting for or against just about every kind of argument imaginable. I will read evidence (including non highlighted portions).

Debaters should be comprehensible. If I can’t understand you, I will say so. I will try my best to resolve the debate based on what the debaters said in their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate although there is no such thing as a tabula rasa judge and some level of judge intervention is often inevitable to resolve arguments. The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue. You make arguments and I decide to the best of my ability who won the arguments based on what you said in the debate.

My speaker points tend to reward smart creative arguments and strategies; smart choices in the debate; high quality evidence; the use of humor; and making the debate an enjoyable experience.

Absent arguments in the debate that convince me otherwise, I have some default assumptions you should be aware of:

The aff should be topical and topicality is a voting issue. What it means to be topical is open for debate.

The affirmative must win a comparative advantage or an offensive reason to vote affirmative.

Presumption is negative absent a warranted reason for it to shift.

Teams are culpable for the ethical implications of their advocacy. This means that framework arguments on K's that say "only consequences matter" have an uphill climb with me. Means and ends are both relevant in my default assessment on critical arguments.

Any questions, feel free to ask prior to the debate.

Mubariz Tahirkheli (Pronounced Moo-bar-is Tar-Kelly)

Please add me to the email chain: mtahirkheli20@gmail.com

Experience and Overview: I was a 4 year Policy Debater and Original Orator at The Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, Missouri. I graduated from Pembroke Hill in 2020, and I am now attending Washington University in St. Louis, though I am not participating in any college level speech or debate program as of now. My debate experience was in a lay-centered circuit, but I occasionally had slow flow and fast flow rounds when it came down to it. I qualified to NSDA nationals in Policy my senior year, but my school opted out due to the online format. I have now judged Varsity Policy, Novice LD, PFD, and Policy. Most of my preferences on argumentation on here are about Policy, so if I am judging you in another event, make sure to ask me any questions!

TLDR:

Clarity is the most important part of debate for me. I will try my best to understand the argument you present, no matter its complexity, but if you aren't clear enough in your delivery or the explanation, it may as well not be an argument. I prefer policy to K debate, but do what you want. Again, I'm trying to be open minded to all arguments. There are specific arguments I might not be able to handle, but you'll need to read on to learn more.

General:

Speed: With the aid of the speech documents, I can handle flowing rounds up to speeds of 300-350 words per minute, but so long as you are clear. Honestly, if you really like, you can go faster if you are extremely clear, but I might tell you "clear" so slow down if I do. Clarity is the most important part of delivery to me. Please be respectful to your opponents on the matter of speed as well, don't spread if they are not up for it. As to what speed I prefer, rounds in which everyone is speaking at a pace of 240-300 is ideal. One note on speed I will reiterate later on: if you are reading high theory or critical positions, I would prefer you don't spread them (max 225-230 wpm). I really want to understand the position you read without making any limitations to what you can and cannot read, so that is one wish, above all, I hope you all can fulfill for me.

Signposting: If you don't signpost to the point where your speed drastically decreases and is extremely clear you're moving from one card or argument to the next, don't blame me for missing it on the flow.

Overviews and Extension: I don't think you need to say "Extend ____ in 20" at the top of the flow so long as at the top of the flow you give a good story and explanation of the page of flow. I think saying "Extend/Cross-apply ____ in 20," or some other form, is necessary when you're trying to answer a newly made argument with a card you already read.

If you are winning the flow absolutely, but you are being disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, etc, I won't vote for you (this includes to your own partner). I've seen and heard of too many people in my circuit giving up on debate because of the toxic environment, and I cannot endorse such a bad representation of the activity.

Arguments:

Topicality: T was one of my favorite arguments to run and write cases of in high school, but I only ever ran it when I knew it made absolute sense. If you run T, you should know how to run it. Topicality for me is mostly about the interpretations and how they are a measure of good debate. So, mainly focus on developing your interpretations with strong analytics on standards and voters. One note worthy of mentioning is that you should run T not as to overwhelm your opponent, but to actually promote good debate and clash on whether the AFF is topical. I would hate to write an RFD in which I think the AFF is reasonably topical, but they lost the Topicality flow.

Framework: For me, framework is its own page of flow and in order to win it, you need to have in-depth analysis on your FW and the opponent's FW. Don't read a lot of cards on framework in the 1AC, two or three should be the max.

DAs: Specific links are the way to go unless you can make a generic link work with enough analysis (one CX concession won't usually work for me). I dislike DAs that have a link/IL/impact story that become really long. You really have to do a lot of work if you want to read a link/IL/impact story like this for me to vote on it.

CPs: You have to really explain the severance perm should you decide to read one. I don't think you should read an intrinsicness perm with me as the judge as I have only heard of them and never debated one and don't know the theory arguments on them. I prefer if you have solvency advocates of the CP. I will choose to judge kick so long as the situation makes sense. Also, Delay CPs are bad and unfair, I ran them a few times in high school and felt horrible after winning a round with them. They just don't feel legitimate to me.

Performance AFFs: I don't think you should read a Performance AFF in front of me. I have no experience with them.

Ks and Critical AFFs: I have some experience with Ks, and you can run them with me as judge so long as you are clear and don't spread (max 225-250 wpm). The reason I want you to speak slower is so that I understand the arguments and so that a team doesn't have a disadvantage because they are less familiar with the K you are running. I have a particular interest for learning more critical arguments, and I'm sure your opponents do too, so please let this aspect of the round be as fully educational as possible. Please run specific links to Ks, or at least generate a sound link in CX. As for critical AFFs, I have really no experience with them, but feel free to run them so long as you explain ROB and voters as clearly as possible.

Miscellaneous:

Lots of clash on case is ideal

I judge the round usually on how the debaters want me to judge it. You tell me what the voters are. You tell me the role of the ballot.

My email (If there's an email chain, please be sure to add me): selinatahirkheli@gmail.com

Experience and Overview:

I'm currently a freshman in college at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I did speech and debate all four years of high school but no longer do it in college. In high school, my main three events were Policy, Original Oratory, and POI, but I also have experience in Congress and Prose. I don't have too much experience with LD (apart from competing in it at one tournament) or PFD. I've judged novice rounds and gotten some baseline knowledge from those, but nothing too crazy. So if I'm judging you in a PFD or LD round please ask me clarification questions before the round starts. As for policy, I debated on a generally lay circuit throughout most of my whole school experience, but I attended NSDA Nationals for policy sophomore year, and Northwestern's 4-week debate camp going into my junior year, so I have some flow debate experience. But don't expect too much from me as I did do mainly lay debate the rest of my junior year and senior year. I will be able to follow most arguments, but some things will have to be explained in order for me to have a better understanding (I'll explain more below).

Although this isn't as relevant, I also have a lot of speech experience if you were wondering, or if I'm judging you in IEs. I went to nationals my junior year in Original Oratory, and I did fairly well locally from my sophomore through senior year in it. The same goes for POI. I started competing in it sophomore year, but started advancing regularly my senior year, and placed 5th at districts. If I'm judging you in speech or forensics know that I will be taking lots of notes. Don't mistake it for me not paying attention. Facial expressions, tone, and blocking are things I will definitely be looking at.

General:

The most important thing to me in policy debate is that I have a clear understanding of your argument from the beginning. If I can't see the logic and the details on the flow, I will not vote for it. If you go for a certain argument in the 2NR/2AR, make sure you've made that argument very very clear so there's no confusion. Clarity is very key here.

I'm not too picky with what arguments I want to see. Have fun and enjoy yourself in the round. Make sure you aren't just shoving arguments down my and your opponent's throat for the sake of it, make it clear what the goal is. I do have some suggestions and preferences about certain arguments that I'll get into more down below.

*SPEED: Going to nationals and attending a high-flow debate camp has given me experience in speed, but that DOES NOT mean I will be able to understand everything you say if you choose to go fast. You also have to consider that I'm a little rusty in the speed department, so it's going to take me longer to adjust. Honestly, for me, it was easier spreading and hearing other people spread when I was the one debating. As a judge, it's different since I want to be able to understand almost everything since I will be deciding who wins the round. That being said, if you are absolutely desperate you can spread, but only if you are VERY CLEAR. But if you can help yourself, I'd prefer that you don't spread. Feel free to still read faster than your average person (please do), just don't overdo it with me or else I will start saying "clear". If I say "clear", slow down or I will drop my pen and stop flowing until you slow down for me. Last thing here, please don't spread anything that's not on the speech doc(s). Cards I can follow, but once you start spreading all your analytics (if they aren't on the speech doc), I'm not going to be able to understand them and remember that clarity is important to me.

Arguments:

T: I love T when it's done well. It was one of my favorite arguments in high school because it can be used in so many different cases. if you have a fair interpretation and a good violation, then I'll absolutely consider the T argument. BUT, make sure that it's not just being used as a time waster. If you want to run T in front of me, be prepared to spend a lot of time on it since I consider it to be very important. If you can convince me that there is a 75%-80% the Aff isn't topical, I will vote for you in the round. So if the Neg is doing a good job, be prepared to spend some time here if you're Aff. Your standards and voters should be clearly linked to the Aff. I don't want to hear generics. Please don't spend time explaining generic standards and voters to me like ground, clash, reasonability, fairness, education, etc. I know what these mean, just tell me why they apply. If you want to talk about a unique standard or voter though, please do explain it. Lastly, if you choose to go for T in the 2NR, at least spend a good 3-4 minutes on it, unless they fumble hard on it in the 1AR.

Theory: I honestly don't like theory very much, it feels like a waste of time just to avoid real argumentation on the topic. But if you're good at running it and there's a reason to (and you give me those reasons) I'll still vote on it. You should have an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. You don't have to go too crazy with the interpretation and violation but they should be there and be clearly connected to the debate. Standards and voters should be a little more specific. Don't just tell me something is a standard and voter for the sake of it being on the flow, explain how each one does/doesn't apply to the debate. Please clash here. I don't want to just hear the same thing in every speech - that's incredibly boring.

Ks: I've run Ks before and I actually really enjoyed arguing on them when I have, but if the K is super complex, I don't want to hear it unless you explain the link and alt very well. The link has to be connected to the case or I won't vote on it. If you use a generic link, please explain why the Aff still applies using analytics - I'll vote on that if it's done well. The alt better not be too ridiculous to the point where the K is just wasting our time. If you want to run a fun K, fine by me, but then you better explain the alt beautifully. Other than that, just have fun with the K, and make sure the picture is clear from the beginning or I won't be able to follow your arguments for the whole debate and you won't win on the K.

DAs: Read anything you want, I'll consider it if the link chain is clear. I will say that I don't understand politics DAs super well, but don't be hesitant to read them if you're actually good at explaining the link chain. You should have a specific link to the aff. PLEASE don't read a generic link without explaining why the Aff actually links into it. You're wasting your time if you don't do that. Lastly, please do impact calculus in your 2NC/1NR and 2NR. And spend time on it. I love impact calculus, so spend time there and really get into terminal impact and the specifics. Teams who spend time on impact calculus and do it will, will certainly get a vote from me if the link chain is also clear at the end of the debate.

CPs: I also love CPs. You can run anything you want here, as well. If you have a fun CP that actually is mutually exclusive, read it! But please run a CP that allows you to clash on the perm debate. I don't want to your perm answers to just be generic, they have to actually make sense. Same goes for the Aff. Please make your permutations clear. Don't just tell me "Perm do aff then do CP" and go down the list, tell me WHY. I will literally stop flowing your list of perms if you don't explain them.

Other:

Please have fun! Remember that this activity is supposed to make you think on your feet and let you clash on arguments, don't make the debate boring by reading generics that have no true meaning to them! If you have any other questions for me before the round, please don't be hesitant to ask them, I would love to answer. If I drop my pen and stare at you, I'm probably not appreciating something you're doing (whether it's speaking too fast once I've said "clear" or being blatantly discriminatory, sexist, biased, etc). Be kind to everyone in the room. I don't want to hear you trash-talking your opponents after the round. That is extremely disrespectful. Other than that, I'm pretty open to most arguments so don't be afraid to try something in front of me as long as you make the argument clear. I'll vote on whatever you tell me to vote on.