Sheikh,+Asif

Asif Sheikh Berkner High School '14 University of Chicago '18

I’m currently a debating freshman at the University of Texas at Dallas and I will transfer to the University of Chicago next year. This is my 5th year of debate. I view judging debates as a learning opportunity, no matter what form or medium it takes place in, so I will try my best to keep an open mind about everything. Argument content is more important to me than form. Like every other paradigm, clarity > speed.

I will most likely vote for you if you identify for me what the essential questions of the round are so I can decide them in your favor. What types of impacts should I prioritize on the flow? What framework best promotes education? Both teams need to assess what their respective opponents are winning and essentially set-up an easy to understand decision calculus for me. Usually just one team does this, and that team typically wins.

Try to stay away from buzzwords and K jargon, I am familiar with a good portion of the critical literature debated as most of my experience in the activity specialized on this aspect of the topic. I am most compelled by debaters who read fewer cards and find the logical holes in their opponents’ arguments. I’m inclined to vote for the team who pointed out these flaws intelligently over the team who reads a lot of evidence. Develop filters for what a good piece of evidence is. Don't accept the opponent's power-tagged evidence, I believe that a major portion of the evidence used in the activity don't say what you really think, poke holes in the logic of their evidence. Evidence analysis is ironically one area of expertise that the community is progressively getting worse at doing, consequentially I will award higher speaks to those who do better comparative evidence analysis.

"Performance"/Critical Debate vs. Policy/Traditional Debate I will be as open-minded as possible, I think both types of debate have their own merits, but I will try not to interject my own beliefs about the activity into my decision. To put it in context, basically the entire second half of my senior year, I ran an aff that was premised off of afro-pessimist literature, while running a policy aff with a heg advantage in the first half of my senior year. I'm open to all forms of debate and I love watching teams take creative approaches in making arguments. Speaker points:

The baseline speaker point determinants for me are clarity and argumentative content. Clarity means making coherent arguments in an organized manner as well as if I can comprehend you or not. I would like to be able to understand the text of the cards you read. If I can’t flow you I will not be able to make a very good decision. Argumentative content just means showing me that you are invested in the activity. This is kind of a catch-all that includes big things (like having a well-thought out strategy) and little things (like being able to use a flash drive) to show me that this activity means a lot to you and partner and both of you have invested time and effort preparing for this tournament. Cross-ex can really help or hurt your points. It should be used to clarify your opponents’ arguments and provide a preview of your strategy. I don't really have any preference between an aggressive or a passive cross-examination style, however, please do not make any blatantly offensive comments to your opponents. I have a high tolerance, but racist, sexist, and ableist comments just simply won't fly with me as a judge. I think debate should be an activity that promotes inclusion, not exclusion. If you have any questions just let me know before round or at asheik234@gmail.com