Hello there,

My name is Hassana I am a regular debater and public speaker currently employing my vast speaking and judging experience to judge speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu.

Email address: rahmatmaimako09@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. I appreciate debaters who check out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc).

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Best of luck.

Me: Top 21st Nationally Ranked in WSD, 3rd year of S&D, 2x Nationals qualifier, 2x TFA State Octofinalist;

My Events: WSD, Congress, DX, IX, Impromptu

Debate:

- Although many judges say they are a blank slate, no one is. It wouldn't be true to say that my experience in debate, argumentation, and general knowledge doesnt play into my ballot. However, if you don't argue against a point even if its something like "the sky is green" its more likely to flow against you, but you all should be doing the debating, not me. I am here to evaluate. However, if arguments arent made, or even if they are something like the "sky is green" wouldn't pass through, understand that just because you say it (and possibly they dont respond to it) doesnt mean I have to buy it. When considering how I will follow your speeches, consider me an intelligent baby. I can follow your arguments as you put them and the debate as a whole but I can not piece together thoughts such as your claims, warrants, and impacts for you. Make your contentions links obvious.

Winning teams :

• Best prove their arguments were true (Practical through impacts, Principle through thoroughly proving importance, relevance, and uniqueness)
• Weigh both the principles and practicals to prove why they win on both, or one type of ground and why its the most important clash/argument in the round.
• It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponent's world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents on the same grounds or lower grounds.

Personal Preferences:

• Content and Strategy > Style (although style is still important)
• Clash heavy debates
• Framework carried through the whole bench
• Weighing that's fleshed out

Don't:

• Rude/Disrespectful
• Spreading (I can handle fast speeds but if it interferes with my ability to flow or your ability to flesh out your arguments you will lose points and my attention)
• Devolve into a definition debate, semantics, or try to tread the middle grounds
• Make me do your weighing or debating for you in my RFD

Speech:

• Speak at a pace that gets your information across, but also leaves space for style
• Use rhetoric not just content to get your points across and display emphasis
• Don't just be informative, be persuasive

Add me to the email chain: coltdls05@gmail.com

BIO:

Education:

*Dripping Springs HS '24

*UT Austin pursuing BA in Religious Studies in Liberal Arts Honors Program

Experience:

*Dripping Springs HS (2021-2024)

*Team Texas(2023-2024)

Event Experience:

*Worlds Schools (main event): NSDA 2024 Quarterfinalist, NSDA 2023 Triple-Octofinalist, TFA Qualifier 2023 & 2024, won and placed at multiple Nat Circ Worlds tournaments with Team Texs.

*Lincoln Douglas: (former main event) Ran K (Set Col)

*Congress: Capcon Finalist and UIL 6A Region Medalist, take this as you will

*Extemp: got a NIETOC bid novice year, again take this as you will.

Event Paradigms and Thoughts

Congress

What I expect to see in a good congress round is creative and outside-of-the-box points, clashing with opponents' arguments, questions pointing out flaws with argumentation, and most of all good articulation. Eye contact, and not reading off a piece of paper is of the utmost importance in my book, don't care what you reading off of as long as you are making eye contact with your fellow reps. Also for Presiding Officers, I will rank based on accuracy and control of the chamber, but not at the expense of making the round dull and robotic.

Extemporaneous Speaking

Rhetoric, Fluency, Eye Contact, and the basics of speech are important. I prefer more creative argumentation as well it is sourced and well warranted. In regards to sources quality>>>>>quantity. Hot take, if the tournament allows you to use a note card, use it as long as you are not reading directly off of it, use the tools that are allocated to you.

Public Address

No real experience here as well. Cross-apply a lot of the standards I have for Extemp.

Info Specific: I don't specifically care about the quality of your boards. Not all competitors have the economic resources to spend on them, if you have a nice board cool, but I'm not gonna contribute to the existing classism in debate.

Interp.

I have no experience in interp, just try to have a cohesive plot, distinct characters, and please try to be unique.

Broader Debate Philosophy:

The debate is not for me, the debate is for the debaters. It should be my duty as a judge to adapt to and try my best to listen to unfamiliar arguments that may challenge my preexisting views on debate, society, philosophy, and subjects at large. So don't be afraid to run arguments that I may not prefer, as long as you can rebut arguments against it, I will vote on it.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Tech>>>Truth

Quick Prefs based on Familiarity:

1. Identity K, Identity Trix, Medieval/Ancient Phil, Performance, Theological Args (they exist in backfiles from like 2012), Linguistic Trix

2. TRAD, LARP, CAP K, Phil, T

3. High Theory, Theory

4. Friv Theory, Trix

I did LD before prioritizing WSD. I would consider myself a progressive judge, I'll vote on anything as long as it's not absolutely repugnant and hateful. Ill update this the more I judge.

Policy Debate

No real experience in this format, cross-apply LD paradigm.

PF Debate

No real experience in this format of debate, I'm fine with spreading. I vote on the K, T, et cetera.

World Schools Debate

General thoughts on the role of the speakers:

Prime Minister/Prop 1st Speaker: Present Case, offer arguments, with links, warrant, impacts, AND UNIQUENESS. Many of the debaters I've seen do not have a proper understanding of uniqueness. Make sure to clarify how your argument is unique to your side of the house. Also, framing is important, what are the imposed burdens, what does "This House ______" mean, and what is the utilization of the model/counterfactual?

Leader of the Opposition/Opp. 1st Speaker: Same thing as Prime Minister, but you should offer a clear rebuttal of framing, and attacks upon the first two substantives.

Deputy Prime Minister & Deputy Opposition Leader/2nd Speakers: Clear up framing debate, framing and modeling should be very clear by the end of the OPP 2 unless it's a framing debate (I understand that), rebuttal/defense on your own case and attack on your opponents should be thorough on first two substantives, and you should be reading a substantive within these speeches.

Nota Bene: I will not be buying new arguments made anywhere beyond the opp 2

Propositional & Oppositional Whip/3rd Speakers:The role of this speech is to establish framing consolidated by this point in the rounds, if the Prop Whip attack the Opp. Sub 3, and identify three points of clash.

Reply Speakers: Consolidate already existing three points of clash and create a world comparison. Attempt to write my ballot for me.

Brief WSD Thoughts:

On Psuedo-Kritikal Arguments: I believe that kritikal argumentation that challenges a perspective and assumption made by the other side of the House is VERY VALUABLE. Take for example a motion such as This House supports Green Energy, I think that an Oppositional approach that challenges the idea of "Green" being centered upon the Western viewpoint of energy, and how Green energy through lithium mining and other practices disproportionately affects Indigenous populations, is an excellent path to the ballot. Sometimes the HEART OF THE MOTION or the "common interpretation" isn't actually a good thing for education or debate.

TLDR: I will vote on cases that veer away from "the Heart of the Motion" as long as the reasoning why the Heart of the Motion is flawed is warranted.

On Counter-Model Fiat: I am a strong proponent that if the Proposition has fiat power, the negation has fiat power as well. I don't know where this argument about the OPP having to "prove incentive" is odd and never heard a convincing reasoning, besides it being used as a trix-like argument in framing. For if the other Opp drops that they have to prove incentive, I'll reluctantly buy the argument, but my threshold is pretty low for responses to the arg.

Weighing on Principle v. Practical: Please weigh for me the competing principles and practical arguments. If not I will default the principle debate as a prior deontological question, and if that becomes a wash I will then weigh competing practical impacts.

Stakeholder, Structural Violence Framing, et cetera:I buy these arguments, I come from a LD background what do u expect tbh.

Notes on Style:I evaluate style on 3 three grounds in precedent:

1. Organization

2. Interaction with other Team

3: Speaking style, I try not to make this impact my decision much, I think prioritizing presentation and speaking style can border on ablism.

Notes on Strategy: Most important ground, if you win on strategy, and actual debate you'll most likely win by ballot.

Notes on Content:Content is just case writing and examples given in rounds. If your examples are proven to be false your speaks will drop.

Big Questions Debate

I secretly love this debate event, its my second favorite when done well.

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.