Mushtaq,+Raza

Updated: October 2015

Experience: Debated in high school. Debated for Arizona State University from 2007-2011.

I have been away from debate for last 4 years. I just finished medical school and I am doing my residency now (if you are interested in pursuing a career in medicine, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me). I love policy debate. I think educational value of policy debate is severely underestimated. Policy was a huge part of my life in high school and college which is why I am very keen to coach and judge. However, my participation in debate is now limited by work hours, but I try my best to be as active as possible.

Before you go on to read this, I would like to add that all of these are just my predispositions for debate and most likely will not influence how I adjudicate debates. I think my coaching and judging preferences have changed quite significantly since I last participated in the activity. Debate has certainly changed in the last few years and I have spent the last couple months trying to catch up. I have spent a fair amount of time reading on surveillance topic so I feel fairly confident judging.

Affirmatives– I don’t have a strong preference on this issue. I do think that you should be germane to the resolution. If you stand up and start talking about something that has nothing to do with resolution – I think that you have excluded negative out of the debate round which probably isnt okay. I do think that topic specific education is good. I do think that you should have some sort of advocacy statement to give negative stable round. Do you have to defend USFG action? That is up for debate. I think I lean more negative on this issue – I think that you probably should. Again, those are my preferences and I try my very best to set those aside when I judge. Debaters should judge debate, so tell me how to vote.

Kritiks – As a debater, I went for Ks maybe 10-15% of the times in 2NR. I have spent a lot more time reading critical literature since I graduated college. I think I have a basic understanding of most criticisms, but I will admit that my knowledge of kritiks is fairly limited compared to most other judges. I think the biggest thing for me is comparative work on kritiks. You need to tell me how your methodology compares to their methodology. Your link, impact and alternative analyses should be in context of affirmative as opposed to reading generic shells. You should know your K lit very well in order for you to relate it to affirmative. If you cannot explain your criticism to a family member then I don’t think you probably understand your argument. You should be able to explain your criticism to a non-debater and have them explain it back to you. That is a good way to test your knowledge of the topic.

Framework – I think framework is definitely a good 2NR option in front of me. When I was debating, I honestly never gave framework too much thought. I kinda made arguments quite randomly. Now that I have had time to think about framework, I think the theoretical objections to not defending a plan or not being topical are far more persuasive than arguments that question different methods for activism. In order to become good framework debaters, I think you really have to do some self-reflection. Why do you want to spend your weekends arguing over random topics with strangers when you could be doing something else? What is your motivation to be at debate tournaments? I think whatever you come up with should serve as the terminal impact for framework. For me, the answer was education – ranging from topic specific education to deliberative skill education. Once you know what you hope to get out of the activity, then rest of the arguments should be easy to make. You need to ask questions like how do you get the best education out of this debate round/tournament/topic? i.e. whats the best internal link to education? I think some of the most persuasive answers here are more theoretical than substantive. What do I mean by that? Arguments such as having predictable limits on the topic allows for in-round clash is probably a better internal link to education than saying gotta engage the state.

Topicality – I enjoy listening to T debates. I think its important to have some sorts of limit on the topic to have good in-round education. If you haven’t gotten the hint – I think debate is about education with pre-round/tournament prep and in-round clash being some of the most important internal links for it. I will operate under this framework unless you tell me otherwise.

Disads – I love disads and case arguments. COMPARATIVE impact calculus is important. CP – I think clever PICs might be my favorite part of debate. CPs are a valuable part of neg arsenal and often underutilized.

Other random things: 1) I love debate and I appreciate that you chose to do policy debate. That said, I think it is very important to have fun and enjoy your time in debate. Be respectful of your opponents. Unnecessary aggression and rudeness would reflect in my decision. 2) I will vote for technique. Meaning, even if I think that you are on the wrong side of the truth, and you win the flow, I will vote for you. 3) “Even if” and “because” arguments are very important and persuasive. Even if you think you are winning every argument on the flow, you should still make some “even if” arguments because I might be thinking otherwise. <- kinda like that 4) Prep time is over once USB leaves your computer. 5) Speaker points – I start at 27.5 for every debater in the round. 29.5+=top speaker at tournament; 29=top 10 speaker at tournament; 28.5 = should be in elimination rounds; 28 = above average; 27.5 = average; 27 = gotta do some work; <27 = you messed up somewhere.

Any other questions, please don’t hesitate to ask me.