Shah,+Sahil

Sahil Shah

McDonogh (Capitol Debate) '15 University of Michigan '19

Rounds Judged To Date - Surveillance - 18 China - 30

Background

I debated at McDonogh under Daryl Burch (and Michael Koo whenever he was actually awake) for 4 years, and spent most of my junior and senior year reading race-based arguments, and went to the TOC my senior year. In college, I've been reading almost exclusively policy arguments and defending the Politics DA with a passion (and the carbon tax, Sewalk is the real MVP). That being said, still appreciate all types of arguments and judge both types frequently

I worked as an RA at the Michigan camp this summer frequently judging for the FFRSV lab so I know a decent amount about the topic

Quick Notes

-- I'm really down for whatever argument you throw at me, as long as it isn't offensive -- Don't change your strat because you think I'll only vote for certain arguments, put your best foot forward -- Impact calculus is very important to me -- you can have a great link or internal link explanation, but if I don't know why they matter, it's gonna be very hard for me to vote for you -- CX is very important, don't underestimate it -- if you do something good in CX, make sure it makes it's way into your speech

Arguments

Topicality - I've only went for a non-framework T violation exactly once in my debate career, so this is not my area of expertise, but don't let that deter you from reading it if you think you can win on it. You need to explain clearly what the implications are of the opposing team's interpretation, and who's interpretation is better for education on the topic, fair ground, etc -- providing examples of cases that are legal under each interpretation is a good thing

Counterplans -- Run them, I'm cool with them. If you have any specific questions about different types of CP's, let me know, I really can't think of anything -- Winning solvency on the CP w/ a good external N/B is probably the easiest way to get my ballot here

Disadvantages -- Like them -- Not a big fan of politics theory arguments, although if they're dropped and you can explain why that's a reason to vote for you, I'll pull the trigger -- Impact calculus is VERY IMPORTANT -- At the same time, don't just solely focus on the impact, make sure you explain your uniqueness, links, etc. as well -- Turns case arguments are very good, go for them

Kritiks -- I spent a lot of time running K's in high school, so I have a little more of a background here -- that being said, don't just poorly run a K because you think I'll vote for it -- I am most familiar with race-based K's and mainstream K's (cap, security, etc.) -- Never really understood high-theory K's in high school -- if I don't feel like I can explain it back after the round, I'm gonna have trouble voting on it -- The biggest problem I have with K debates is there's not usually enough clash -- it is critical for the neg to interact with the case, otherwise, it will be an uphill battle for you -- I never found most K framework arguments particularly persuasive -- it usually ends up being the aff says "we get to weigh our case" and the neg saying "we get the K", without any real impacts -- if you don't impact the framework debate, I can't really vote on it -- The perm is the aff's best friend in K debates (especially in a K aff vs K debate) -- read them, but make sure you explain what the world of the perm means, otherwise I can't vote for it

K Affs -- Love them (but not as much as when I initially wrote this wiki) -- In K affs vs. K debates, the perm is your best friend -- going for the perm in the 2AR is a great way to get my ballot -- Make sure your still doing impact calculus and line by line in these debates

Theory -- Anything more than 2 conditional options is probably bad, 2 or less is probably alright, but I can be persuaded either way -- Most of the CP-specific theory arguments (50 state fiat bad, international fiat bad, etc.) is in my mind more of a reason to reject the argument, not the team -- I am quite fond of disingenuinity/conditional ethics arguments, and if impacted properly, can easily be persuaded to vote on that as a reason to reject the team

Things That Will Help Your Speaker Points -- Making any references to anyone from Capitol Debate (McDonogh, Centennial, Atholton, River Hill, Reservoir) or Michigan debate (especially Kurt Fifelski) -- Making reference to this article in any of your speeches: http://trwonline.blogspot.com/2005/12/leave-min-wage-alone.html -- Give me your M-Card before the round and I'll boost your speaks

Other Miscellaneous Notes -- Flashing doesn't count as prep, but don't be egregious about it -- If you say or do anything offensive, even if the other team doesn't call you out on it, I will most likely vote you down for that reason alone and give you poor speaks