Khattak,+Muhammad

Lake Highland '18 Stanford '22 Email: muhammadykhattak@gmail.com

I'm currently a senior at Lake Highland, where I've debated for 5 years. I qualified to the TOC my sophomore, junior, and senior year, clearing my junior year.

I believe the only essential feature of debate that I should uphold as a judge is that an argument is characterized by having a claim, warrant, and impact. You should read whatever style argument you're most comfortable and I'll try to adjudicate as best as possible. In terms of argument type, I consider myself tabula rasa. As a debater, I really had no preference for any certain type of argument over the other and tried to be familiar with as many styles of debate as possible (from phil/kritiks to util/theory to tricks). But for preffing reasons, here are some thoughts on evaluating specific debates:


 * Util (CP, DA, Plan, etc.): **
 * I mostly read util args my sophomore and senior year for flexibility reasons, so I consider myself reasonably comfortable on assessing these debates.
 * I'll try to evaluate these debates as cleanly as possible My general thought process through them is (1) isolating the primary impact filter (whether it be probability or magnitude or some other framing) (2) identifying the largest impact under that filter and (3) isolating who has the strongest internal link to that impact. I feel like impact weighing can be fundamental to making these debates clearer, and I'd subsequently treat them like layers in any other debate. Evidence quality comparison can be essential to winning any of these three components and is highly encouraged.
 * I believe in zero-risk of an impact occurring; if it is the case that an impact defense argument is conceded and other great defense is put on an advantage, a debater can't stand up and claim some sort of "risk of offense." 0.0001% risk is 0% risk.


 * Kritik: **
 * I'm pretty familiar with a lot of K lit. I was most well-read in a lot of high-theory / philosophically-grounded Ks (Wynter, Wilderson, D&G, Foucault, Derrida, etc.). I'm open to whatever you wanna read.
 * I'm very open to methods debates and believe these things can serve as offense / game winning parts of the debate if debaters win them as such (i.e. winning a Deleuzian model of the subject as the aff can be spun as offense against the Wilderson kritik the negative is reading if it's impacted as such). Not to say I'll automatically treat these arguments as offense, but that I'm open to it. Many K debates I had as a debater came down to these methods questions, and I think they can turn out to be great debates.


 * Framework/Philosophy: **
 * I consider myself well-read in a lot of different philosophy lit; I went for a lot of these positions as a debater so feel more than free to read them.
 * I default to ethical confidence in framework comparison, but I'm more than open to hearing modesty arguments.
 * I think generic framework defense arguments (beg the question, no warrant, fallacy of the X, etc.) have very little utility in framework debates and they never really turn out to be game changing issues. I'm far more likely to vote off these 1-sentence analytics if they are revamped with a more robust implication/explanation. This is probably best achieved by spinning these arguments as hijacks, which is especially useful in evaluating framework comparison (i.e., because X framework begs the question for reasons 1, 2, 3, you can only use my framework because of 1, 2, 3). Not to say I won't vote off these arguments, just that they need to be better impacted.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%;">Topicality/Theory: **
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%;">I'm fine with whatever. I'm no stranger to theory, frivolous or otherwise.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%;">Concerning T-Framework, I'm impartial on the issue of whether it's true since I found myself on both sides of the debate. However, I think the debates ultimately come down to a question of TVA; this is the first place I'll go in evaluating these rounds.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%;">Please read a voter, otherwise I'll have to go to my defaults (fairness and education are voters, drop the debater, no RVI, competing interps), and I'll be sad.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%;">Speaks: **
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%;">I'll start at around a 28 and move up from there. Speaks are awarded based on technical decisions and strat.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%;">Don't be mean. That'll hurt speaks even if you do end up winning.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%;">Offensive arguments can result in both an L and low speaks.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%;">Notable judges/coaches who have helped shape my paradigm and I aim to judge like: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 120%;">Tom Evnen, Paras Kumar, Erik Legried, Becca Traber, Nick Smith.