Mujir,+Faroz

Assistant Coach for Wayzata Experience: Debated for Wayzata, and on and off for University of Minnesota


 * A lot of this was pulled from Miranda Ehrlich's judge philosophy -- Email me if you got questions "mujir005@umn.edu".

Couple of top-level comments: 1. Clarity/speaking is really important to me. I tend to stop flowing if you cannot get the information clearly. 2. Dropped arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication – you cannot just say they dropped and therefore it is true 3. Impact calc, Impact calc, Impact calc. Please do it.

Some specifics: 1. Disads – Case Specific Disads are wonderful. I like them a lot. I can get by on politics, but case specific disads, that's the stuff. 2. Counterplans – Many are theoretically questionable, but affirmatives rarely push back on this. Substantive PICs are awesome – multi-actor object fiat is the worst. Everything else is somewhere in between. 3. Kritiks – I will clarify, I am not super familiar with the literature, but as long you can explain to me the specific link, impact, and alt action, I'm good. Generic postmodernism is not exactly my cup of tea, but then again, I'll vote on anything. Honestly, I'll say I'd prefer you to go to a little slower on this, which would reflect in your speaker points. I like topic-specific K’s, and think they’re a good strategy on this topic in particular. Neolib, imperialism, etc. are all very viable strategies in front of me, but they need to be applied specifically. I would also highly recommend __extending case defense to bolster your K__ – the most common aff argument I vote on against K’s is “case outweighs”. There is nothing more I like than soft policy affs, but a close second is K affs that are topical, defend a small-ish impact, and critique disads – especially if you can point out why the disad is contrived and silly, which it likely is.

Non-traditional – I’ll consider voting for *nearly* anything, but be aware that I find a __well-debated framework argument__ to be persuasive. Theory – conditionality is almost certainly good, unless it is way excessive, like 5 counterplans. I do however think that if the neg makes performative contradictions – for example, reads a security K and then a terrorism impact on a disad – it can be justification for the aff to sever their reps/judge choice. I do not default to judge kick unless told to do so.

Theory is nearly always a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I can be convinced otherwise, but I'll default this way.

*No racism good, sexism good, etc.