Sheikh,+Sameer


 * Langham Creek '13**
 * UT '17**

__**Background:**__ I debated for Langham Creek High School and I am now a student at the University of Texas at Austin. I competed in PF, in which I qualified to state in. Don't let my background stop you from doing what you would like to do. I always do my best to keep my own personal ideologies out of judging and understand the arguments you choose to run. Btw this paradigm is mainly written for LD but I mainly judge PF so feel free to ask me for paradigms before the round in PF but the general philosophy, speaker points, and other stuff sections probably have some relevant information in them.

__**General Philosophy:**__ I think debate is a fun and interesting activity, in that it provides a unique forum for students to discuss a variety of topics in an educational manner. I will vote off most types of arguments as long as they are well-warranted and impact back to some sort of weighing mechanism. A clearly articulated weighing calculus is a very easy way to my ballot. It is your job as the debater to do the work for me. Keep a clean flow i.e. roadmap, signpost, etc. I use the flow as a tool to help me evaluate the round but ultimately I must be convinced of the argument to vote off it.(I think my PF background heavily influences me on this) This means that I probably won't call for evidence after the round unless I really really need to come to a decision. I find that it's always best to do what you do best. Ultimately, just be nice, be funny, be you, and have fun.

__**Speed:**__ Speed is usually fine. Clarity is always more important than speed. I will yell clear twice before docking speaks and also before I stop flowing. I ask that at the start of your speech, you don't go super fast, but rather give me time to warm up and adjust to your speaking. Emphasis and ethos really help me not tune you out and understand your arguments better. Also, please slow down for tags, authors, and dense material(I actually really mean this. SLOW DOWN A LOT for tags and authors or I will miss them). Remember that if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. Also, don't spread through speeches needlessly. Just win the round.

__**Theory:**__ I haven't seen enough theory debates or have enough background in it to default to a certain paradigm. In the rounds I have judged in which theory was run, I find myself only buying theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than reject the team. Theory read just as time suck for your opponent will cost you speaks because I think there are far more educational ways to win rounds. Given that, if there is clear abuse, I will evaluate theory. However, if you were to just make an abuse argument to throw out that argument, I would also buy that assuming it's not a huge argument that you're claiming is abusive. Feel free to argue against my view of theory, I will certainly listen and evaluate your arguments. However, make sure theory isn't your only offense in the round. If you choose to run an RVI, make sure there is actual offense linked to the RVI, which means "I meet" arguments would not justify an RVI. Also, be very clear explaining the RVI and the impact of it on the round and give me clear weighing analysis between the standards to minimize the amount of intervention that I have to do in the round.

__**Policy Arguments:**__ These are generally okay given that each has all the necessary parts. Don't read recycled DAs or CPs that don't have specific links to the resolution. I won't vote off them and will lower your speaks. Weighing through a clear impact calculus is a must to these arguments. Don't be surprised if at the end of the round I find a lot of the debate here a wash because there was no evidence comparison and weighing. Also, be sure to spend more time explaining links to extinction scenarios and make sure they're reasonable.

__**Critical Arguments:**__ I haven't read any critical literature, but I do find them to be interesting so I will vote on such arguments. Because i'm not familiar with the literature, you're going to have to slow down a little and spend more time making sure I understand it especially the alternatives. I prefer Kritiks with specific links to the AC with an alternative, as opposed to generic Kritiks that can be recycled on every topic.

__**Speaker Points:**__ I'm usually pretty generous with speaker points. The easiest way to win speaks for me is through humor, strategy, and confidence. Making the round easy to flow and follow will also win you higher speaks. I don't want to be the guy who stops you from clearing because of speaks, so after the round tell me and I will grant you speaks accordingly (somewhere between 29.5-30). Other than that my range is typically from 28-29. If you make racist, sexist, or straight up asinine comments in round, I will give you a 20-25. Debate is fun and educational. Don't make it a hostile environment or I will tank your speaks and potentially drop you.

__** Other Stuff: **__ CX is important. I will listen to CX. It's an easy indicator if you actually know your case and what it's saying. Use it wisely. Ask questions, don't make speeches. Be sure to impact your extensions. I give the AFF leeway for this in the 1AR but the 2AR should clearly explain the impacts of the arguments you extended and how they function in the round. You don't need to be winning everything and you're more than likely not going to win every issue in the round. That's okay. That is why it's important to weigh between what you're losing and what you're winning to make sure it's clear what the biggest arguments are at the end of the round. Thus, framework becomes important. I don't think I do a good job deciding on which framework is better mostly because my personal, subjective beliefs become more relevant even though I try to stay objective. So just make it clear on why you're winning the framework. Also, typically framework and pre-standards aren't really voters. They mostly tell me how to evaluate the round in terms of the actual offense. Framework has offense that's linked to it that are voters. But just because you win framework usually doesn't mean that's enough to win the round. Make sure you're still winning the actual offense linked to the framework.

__** Arguments, I will reluctantly vote for (with low speaks): **__ 1. Skepticism 2. Presumption 3. Unwarranted Pre-Standards 4. Unnecessary (Time-Suck) Theory 5. Arguments read just to confuse your opponent (and potentially confuse me)

__** Tl;dr- **__ Just do what you're comfortable with and do what you do best. Be smart, be persuasive, and use your common sense. If you think that it might be a bad argument then it probably is. Have fun. Don't be a jerk. You should be fine.

As always, this is just basic information, but if you have any more specific questions feel free to ask before the round. Thank you and good luck!