Shah,+Erum

Debated 4 years in College for the University of Kansas
Currently assistant coaching for Blue Valley North High School

Worked with this years high school debate topic at the Jayhawk Debate Institute and have judged around 40+ rounds

 * I don’t have a preference for what style of argument you make, be it performance, critical or policy you just need to make a claim, a warrant and have some sort of impact for me to weigh. That being said here are some specifics.**

===Framework: This debate for me is about how to evaluate the round. Its more a justification for your impacts then a voting issue. Just winning framework and no impact is not a reason you win the debate.===

===Topicality: It comes down to competing interpretations though I will default to reasonability if the neg doesn’t prove a substantial loss in core negative ground or a well warranted education debate. Criticisms of T are totally fine by me. In these debates the Aff needs to win that excluding them is worse for the activity then the negs ability to debate fair grounds and limits.===

===Theory: I’m not a fan of the cheap shot, I want to hear a well warranted, and impacted theory debate, invest a little time if you want me to vote on this. I’m fairly persuaded by reject the argument not the team in most instances. My interpretation of conditionality is you get a test in/ test off the aff framework, but if you can justify to me why you get to run 3 Cps and a K, I’m not about to vote you down for it.===

===Critiques: Case specific links and stories win me over best. Reading a bunch of cards and buzz words at me without knowing how your argument functions in the round will get you no where. Tell me how your alternative solves the case and other external impacts are important too. For the Aff: I love to hear a good permutation debate, external-net benefits to your perm are important.===

Process:
===You need to be winning some sort of external net-benefit for your actor, otherwise the aff doesn’t need to do much more then perm it for me to vote. In most cases I feel that unless the aff has chosen to specify their agent, the XO and Courts Cps don’t end up being all that competitive. It’s definitely a debate to be had and don’t be discouraged from reading them in front of me.===

PICs:
===Word PICs are ok but I’m not going to be persuaded too often by the “the” or “should” PICs, if you have something more clever and with a better literature base then I’m hear to listen. A smart PIC can be a devastatingly awesome strategy, it encourages better plan writing.===

Condition/Consult:
===These can definitely be framed as abusive, but I am generally a fan. I think as the neg you need some solvency or literature base to tie your CP to the plan. If you have this you will have an easier time with theory in front of me. Since my burden for theory arguments is high, the Aff will need to sit on those types of arguments a little bit more to get my ballot.===

===D/As: I’m ok with generic disads, as long as you can prove a good link to the topic. Case specific disads are even better. If you are winning a strong link, some uniqueness is enough to get you through, however the aff can persuade me to view this debate the other way. I like looking to the impact debate, if you are winning a minor impact but no case defense then a good link just isn’t enough. D/A turns the case arguments are very persuasive.===