Hossain,+Mohammed


 * Hossain, Mohammed **

Currently an undergraduate philosophy and psychology double major and cognitive science minor at SUNY Geneseo.
 * About me **

 **__Debater Background__**

Debated policy/ CX debate for three years in under Brooklyn Technical High School/ NYCUDL, novice for about half a year, and varsity for the remainder.

I was very competitive during my time competing and attended many local, regional, and national tournaments.

I have made it to elims at every (or at least nearly every) national tournament I have ever attended and have been a co-champion of New York State Varsity Policy Debate during my last year.

In sum, I consider myself to be a competent debater at the very least.

 **__Judging Background__**

I do not have much judging experience to be honest. However, I believe that this won't be too much of a problem since I am fairly used to watching rounds with my prior debate experience, and am usually good at determining who has done the better argumentation at the end of the round overall.

SUMMARY:

I'm willing to vote on almost any argument. I see myself as a very open-minded judge. However you must do the work for me. You must provide the arguments during the debate and provide me with a means to evaluate them. I will not do any work for any particular team. I'm decent with speed, but when in doubt, clarity > speed. If you want certain arguments to hold more weight in its evaluation at the end of the round, make sure to stress it or highlight its importance in some way.

KRITIKS: I have been a K debater nearly my entire time in policy debate so I am very familiar with the literature. When also considering my background in studying philosophy in college (metaphysics, epistemology, logic, deconstructionism, ancient philosophy, modern philosophy, etc.) I can fairly say that I am confident in my ability to understand K arguments. There are probably very few philosophical arguments that would be completely out of my scope of understanding… that being said, always be clear about what the general premises and conclusion of the critique are, especially if you run a very nuanced critique or psychoanalytical K (although I am familiar with these too). Please also provide a good link story and a description of the world of the alternative, as well as a reason to prefer it over the opposing methodology. I prefer this style of debate over most others; however, do not feel compelled run a K just because it seems I like K's. There is almost nothing worse than hearing a really badly done K debate. Also, completely unnecessary jargon is not appreciated. Sadly, I'm guilty of having realized this only after having used too much of it during my time debating competitively. In my opinion, truly good K debaters (and philosophers) are able to explain complicated arguments in simple, systematic, and comprehensive ways that generate good discussion—they make even the most difficult and dense philosophies sounds simple and accessible.

TOPICALITY: Topicality is fine with me. I'm willing to vote on it as long as there are compelling arguments for it and there is a clear reason highlighted for me to vote on it by one or more teams in the round.

COUNTERPLANS: I'm fine with these, there's nothing must to say here. Just be clear on the arguments and reasons to prefer.

DISADVANTAGE: These are fine too. Be clear on the link story and why It’s a decisive reason to reject the affirmative.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">FRAMEWORK: I really like framework, maybe because it guarantees me a way to evaluate the round. I usually look at the framework (and theory) flows before looking at the substantial argumentative positions in a debate. That being said, do not run it just because I like it. If there are competing frameworks, try to give reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. As always, be clear on the arguments, especially the interpretation, and any relevant standards.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I generally really like these as I was a performance/ K aff debater myself for a significant period of time. If you do this kind of debate, do it well. As I mentioned already on the K section, there is almost nothing worse than hearing a really badly done K debate, and this applied for “performance” oriented styles as well. I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">THEORY: Oddly enough I really enjoy theory debates, but please be clear on them. They are only enjoyable to me when I am actually able to understand the theoretical positions that are being argued. I see it in a very similar fashion to framework.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">FLASHING EVIDENCE: I'm generally okay with this, but just make it quick.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">BEHAVIOR STYLE: It’s okay to be aggressive, but try not to be too rude. Remember that the people across the room from you are also probably decent people and fellow intellectual peers, students, and debaters. It's easy to get caught up in the heat of the debate, but I find something really respectable in people who can maintain kindness even in such a competitive atmosphere.