Amin Al-hassan

Affiliation: Bradley Tech High School
Background: 3 years high school varsity debate, 2nd year judging policy debate

Judging Paradigm: As a policy judge I will normally vote for the team that gives me the best policy based on their impact analysis of their AD’s, Harms, DA’s, K’s, CP, so on and so forth. Magnitude, Timeframe, and Probability should weigh the impacts of the round and if you, as the debater, do not weigh them for me, I will take it upon myself to do so. I also understand that at the varsity level, debate rounds don’t always stick to only policy. I am very open to all kinds of arguments and in certain cases will judge more on a tabula-rasa paradigm. If one team can give me a superb reason to vote another way that they are winning the round, I will. Overall, if neither team gives me a clear-cut way to vote, I will default to the best policy in the round.

The following are my views and preferences

Clash: This is probably the most important thing I look for in a debate round. Clash is imperative if you want a win and good clash will definitely lead to higher speaker points.

Speed: Speed is fine, but clarity and articulation are very important when speed-reading. I can flow it, just make sure I can understand what you’re trying to say. If you do plan to speed, then I highly recommend a good road map so I can easily put your arguments in their perspective place.
*ROAD MAPS, in general, are appreciated.

Cross-X: Cross examination is the debaters time to clarify what was just read in the constructive so I expect questions to be answered accurately and honestly. Nothing in the C-X will be flowed and nothing that is said will be considered a binding argument, but feel free to develop an argument from something said in the C-X. Tag teaming is not allowed and speaker points will be affected if I feel there is any abuse of this.

Topicality: I will listen to topicality but rarely will I vote for it. At the varsity level, I feel most cases that are run are topical enough and topicality debates waste a lot of time that can be applied to something more constructive. I’m not saying that I won’t flow a Topicality argument in your favor but I don’t want T taking up most of the debate. T is not a voter.

DA’s, CP’s, and K’s: I would rather have specific links to all DA’s but I will accept generic DA’s. Just because they are generic doesn’t mean good clash can’t develop from them. CP’s are great and always make the round a little more interesting. I encourage running a CP as part of your argument. I am open to hearing Kritiks and will definitely vote on them when ran correctly. When running a Kritik, I will expect to hear a good alternative if you want to win the Kritiks. I expect all of the above to be ran in the 1NC and if not, will not be weighed into the round.

Synopsis

In general, I am pretty open to all kinds of arguments and different aspects of policy debate. I will vote for anything as long as you can convince me to do so in the final rebuttals. Just remember, the round is not lost or won until the final rebuttals, which is really where I want to hear you tell me exactly why I should vote for either side. Remember to pull through all your arguments and point out any that were dropped by the other team. Good Luck!