Khan,+Samiur

Samiur Khan The Bronx High School of Science

Please don't expect me to evaluate an argument with a tagline extension.....sigh...... I evaluate the argument if the warrants are also extended. Please do not read 500 cards and expect me to connect the dots for you. I much rather prefer you read fewer cards and make logical connections and arguments using the cards and/or find loopholes in the other team's evidence. I find cards are tools for making a larger argument that the debater makes, not the other way around. It not only helps me when evaluating, but just gives you a lot of ethos. Remember, evidence comes in sets of warrants.
 * Feel free to run anything** - I've debated both critical and policy debates. However, I do have a slight preference for critical arguments BUT don't let that stop you from reading what you want.


 * Impacts** - Framing arguments and painting the big picture is pretty important for me. Please refrain from saying "100% risk of our impact" or likewise jargon. Also, avoid the trident of magnitude, tf, probability and make impact calc comparitive in light of their impacts.

OSPEC - sigh. ASPEC - need to have a good reason why it's being run.
 * Topicality** - I usually default to competing interpretations. Quality of evidence here matters. For example, if your interpretation card is about Australian policy on a topic about the US, you are going to have a tough time. If you believe that a different from of analysis should be used, make it a part of the debate.


 * Counterplans** - I really enjoy smart or logical counterplans but theoretical issues matter. Consult/Process CPs = uphill battle for neg. Condition CPs need to have an aff specific warrant for it to not be an uphill battle. I-fiat and States are okay but if there is a legitimate theoretical objection, go for it.

One of my smaller bias - if you are indicting an author (i.e. this author is white/western/modernity driven/Nazi) you need a specific reason why that implicates that specifically implicates the politics that author advocates for. Do have a practical limit on jargon (yes I'm looking at you fans of postmodern criticisms).
 * Kritiks** - I love these. However, I would like if the team reading the kritik actually knows what the kritik is. Please refrain from reading a kritik you might not understand. The quality of debates do decline when you do not know about it.


 * Theory** - If the other team drops something, please impact it if you are going for it. I think theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument not the team but this can be changed. Also, slow down...please.


 * Framework/Performance Debate** - I really enjoy these so feel free to run these. However, I do think that topicality (a.k.a framework...) debates are an opportunity for good debates about debate.


 * Flashing is not prep for me.** I know computers aren't always the best. If your computer magically crashed, I won't get annoyed. Just don't take tooo much time.

Don't steal prep (duh).

Don't be a douche in **CX**. If you all enter a screaming frenzy, person being CXed should stop 1st. Don't be way too aggressive. Please answer any CX question directly.

Most importantly, learn and **have fun**.