Naqvi,+Tae

Policy Debate: I did Policy for two years in Colorado and was a member of Cornell University team for a year. Consequently, I have debated in circuits that are arguably both too conservative and too liberal with regard to the types of argumentation that are considered permissible / vogue. As a result, I have developed a fondness for both good critical argumentation and good theory / topicality debates. That said, my paradigm is more or less //tabula rasa//. I really will listen to anything. Using the arguments that you feel are the most strategic or are the most comfortable with is typically the strategy that will be the most functional in a round in which I’m a judge. Like most judges, I will consider any dropped argument to be true: even if I think that your DA is stupid, I can fairly easily suspend my personal judgment and evaluate it against the other arguments in the round. Generic arguments are absolutely fine, although creativity is always welcome. I have not read large amounts of critical literature, but have had exposure to a wide range of critical argumentation in debate. I do think it’s more impressive if you can explain the kritik link/alternative in a way that makes sense as opposed to reading three more cards about it – deliberate obfuscation and elusiveness will make me less likely to vote for any argument. I never ran narratives or performance, but I do not believe they are illegitimate or bad unless the opposing team convinces me that they are. I will definitely vote on Topicality / Theory. I evaluate it like I would any other argument, although I have higher standards for thorough coverage during these debates. I will vote on a dropped procedural in almost all circumstances. If you go for Topicality / Theory alone in the final rebuttal, it is generally stronger than going for Topicality / Theory and something else. Here is some additional advice: LD Debate: I debated LD throughout high school, but never dedicated as much time to it as Policy debate. To win an LD round, I believe that you either have to (a) win the Core Value / Criterion debate or prove why you link better to your opponent’s Core Value / Criterion and (b) extend one piece of offense. I generally think that the Criterion should be a verb or a philosophical tool (e.g. “the reduction of crime” or the Just War Theory, etc.) but I’m far from a purist. I’m not concerned about separating out the arguments that belong in and don’t belong in LD – you are welcome to run anything if you can tell me why I should vote for it. It is also worth mentioning that my primary focus was policy debate, so I tend to appreciate impact analysis. Extemp: Ideally, you should be using evidence creatively to take a stand on the topic you’ve been assigned. I evaluate the content of speeches above speaking style. I don’t think that the traditional intro-three points-conclusion format is sacred, and I have a fairly high threshold for creativity here too. If the extemp walk helps you transition effectively between points, then it is useful. Otherwise, I am not very concerned about it.
 * 1) If you are the Negative team and go for a counterplan in the 2NR, I will evaluate the Affirmative plan against the counterplan, and not against the status quo.
 * 2) I like and appreciate smart analytics.
 * 3) I do not believe that Topicality is genocide. However, I do think there are other reasons why a non-topical case could be a good thing.
 * 4) I’m easily convinced that new arguments in rebuttals are abusive and that RVIs are illegitimate.
 * 5) I find it irritating when Negative teams go for everything in the 2NR.
 * 6) Don't call me "Judge." I find it obnoxious.