Ziaee,+Sameer

Dougherty Valley '16, competed in LD, Policy, and Parli Most notable Achievements:

2-2 Novice Pufo GGSA novice invitational

1-4 Novice LD SCU2

2-2 JV LD GGSA Debate 1

Some smaller achievements of mine:

Policy State Champion

2 bids to the TOC in LD

Semi-finalist at Parli TOC

Finalist in VLD at CPS

Semi-finalist and 2nd Speaker in VLD at Stanford

Paradigm: Flow~

I didn't read anything but K's till my senior year, where I then started reading T and D/A's.

aff and neg Kritiks/Performance:

I generally read very basic arugments and would out tech opponents, reading performance arguments and high theory is fine if you know what you're saying and are able to leverage it against your opponents offense. I think debaters tend to say, "because my opponent didnt respond to this, I win" plenty of times, and I'm not a fan. K debaters thend to do it alot, because they feel that because their authors use big words to judge will just err on their side. Highest speaks will be given to debaters in a round where it's perfromance vs performance, or K aff vs K.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">T/FW:

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I will not evaluate a single theory shell that somone would not read in policy. I think most theory in LD is useless, but topicality and FW on the other hand is different. Reading Topicality as neg is persuasive with a good definition and if you out tech your opponent I'll vote for it. Same with FW, if your opponent read 6 mins of poetry, and you read 7 mins of fw, that's not a bad strategy in my eyes. I really like good theory against K's, some debaters think that by kritiking FW and T, they can be as abusive as they want, I disagree with them. A good FW or T shell against a performance aff is really persuasive.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">PLAN/CP: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Standard debate, meaning I'll evalute it without a problem, just don't expect very high speaker points (29.5-30) unless you do something amazing. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Traditional:

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I don't understand this form of debate, I could evaluate it in more novice levels, but not when debaters are spreading. I'll flip a coin really to decide if both debaters seem confident in their rebuttals.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Ask me any questions before the round.