Shah,+Mateen

4 year HS debater that graduated in 2012 and debated on the DCI circuit. I have been assistant coaching for Wichita East from 2016-Present. Tournaments judged: WaRu,
 * Background:**

Flash me speeches, or add me to any email chains: mateenshah [at] gmail [dot] com If you have any lingering questions, please ask me pre-round.

Clipping = auto-loss I hate intervening and try to avoid it at all costs, but non-interactive argumentation forces my hand (and will likely lower your speaks.) Read slower on blocks and on tags, especially if they're critical and multiple sentences. T, CPs, DAs and presumption are cool. I don't know most K lit, but if you're confident with your explanation, go for it. Identifying args as offense or defense from the 2AC onwards is super helpful. Diclose.
 * Top Level:**


 * Specifics:**


 * Case:** __**I'm absolutely willing to vote on terminal defense/presumption.**__ I think some teams are afraid to go for defense in the 2NR, but I think this can be strategic/persuasive/necessary. __**Also, make sure to signpost args as turns/takeouts etc.**__ This makes me more inclined to look at the warrants in a card and makes me less skeptical later if you extend those args as offense in the 2NR/2AR. **__No New in the 2.__**


 * T:** Topical version of the aff, and plan text in a vacuum arguments are persuasive. The more time you spend on T in the 2NR, the more likely I am to vote on it. I don't particularly favor reasonability or competing interps when evaluating. Limit yourself to 1 T violation. **__I'd prefer it if both teams included standards in their speech docs for 2 reasons: 1. It helps me out because I'm bad at flowing T and 2. I think it's best for clash. Debate's become more about engaging the opponents standards rather than hoping one of them is dropped. I understand the strategy behind not including them in docs, but if that's your go to neg strat, I would suggest conferring with the aff team before the round to see if they'll agree to include their standards if you include yours. I mean this primarily for the 1NC/2AC.__**


 * K:** I'm unfamiliar with most Ks and their literature, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for them. I evaluate an alt like I would a CP. Contextualizing the link in terms of the aff and thoroughly explaining the role of the ballot and the alt, helps me a lot in these debates. Invest CX time asking about an alt if you think it's weird. I think vague alts bad is strategic/underutilized. Explaining the world of the perm/how it functions with a few sentences is infinitely more persuasive than only saying they dropped the perm we win. PLEASE use cx to explain/dispute the world of the perm.


 * CP:** Articulate a net benefit. If you think a certain CP is abusive, use cx to illustrate that. PICs are cool and underutilized.


 * Condo:** __**Please don't read condo bad if the neg has 2 or less advocacies.**__ At the VO level you should be able to deal with that. There's almost always a more substantive argument you can be making in your 2AC that sets up an easier 1AR.


 * DA:** Yes.


 * Theory:** I prefer voting on in-round abuse. Also, I don't want to hear/flow 14 reasons why is bad. Limit yourself to 3-4 reasons and develop those. If you're reading framework, please roadmap it distinctly from the K/CP proper. I default to reject the arg not the team and probably won't be persuaded otherwise. Also, speak slower when reading blocs. These are hard to flow.

Be clear even if I have a speech doc. Say "and" or "next" between cards. If you're jumping around in your speech doc, be very clear where you are going or what you are not reading. Extend arguments by giving me an author and a warrant. This should be done every speech after the 1NC. Comparative arguments. Explain why their author/evidence/warrant should be disregarded AND why your's have merit. Evidence indicts. If someone reads a really bad internal link card, tell me they read a really bad internal link card. Do this tactfully. Likewise, if you think your evidence is really good on a certain question, tell me. I'm more inclined to read a card after a round if you do this. Use CX well. Reference CX in speeches if you think the other team made a concession. Tell me what the other team should have done. <-- That's probably a poor way to phrase that but. For example, if a team says perm do both, but they defend the perm as if they said perm do the CP, tell me they're misunderstanding their argument, and they should've said perm do the CP. Similarly, tell me if the other team fails to extend something they should've. If you do this, do it tactfully. If you speak quietly, move closer to me or ask me to move closer to you. Pre-empt, especially in the 1AR/2NR. Good in the 2AC/bloc too. Develop arguments. Listing conceded arguments isn't enough. This often means you should condense (for the 2NR especially) as the debate goes on. __**Impact Calc. Don't save this exclusively for the 2NR/2AR.**__ Signpost. Not only when switching between flows, but also if an argument is a turn, call it a turn.
 * Misc Things I Like/How to get easy speaks:**

Don't yell, lie, be sexist or rude. Don't read into your laptop. Don't have poorly organized speech docs.
 * Misc Things I Don't Like/How to lose speaks:**