Abid,+Maeshal

I debated for four years at Valley High School in West Des Moines, Iowa and am currently a student at Emory University. I have taught at the National Symposium for Debate (NSD) and the National Debate Forum (NDF). I currently coach at Randolph High School.


 * General**: My paradigm will probably not be that big of a surprise to anyone: I prefer a comparative evaluation of debate rounds, and I default to that evaluation. I will listen to a truth testing framework and will use it if that interpretation wins.

I will not vote on arguments that are incompletely extended in rebuttals. If the warrant and impact are not articulated, I will cross out the argument from my flow.


 * Speaks**: I'm fairly nice with speaker points. As long as you are not bumbling throughout your speeches or spouting off racial slurs and you are making coherent arguments, then you'll most likely be happy with what I give you.


 * Speed**: Speed is fine. If you are incomprehensible, I'll say "clear" once. If you remain incomprehensible, I'll just drop my pen and wait for you to look up.


 * A prioris**: Please don't make me vote on an a priori :(. I'm not a huge fan of these types of arguments. If they are run, they have to have a clear reason for why they are preclusive and no-risk. I'll vote on them, but my unhappiness will be shown in your speaks.


 * Theory**: Theory is fine, and I would love to hear it if there is actual abuse in round. Reading theory when there is clearly no abuse is not something I will greet with open arms, but I will vote on the violation if it is won. It's not my fault if debaters are unable to defeat bad shells. I will not vote on theory if you forget to extend the internal link between the standard and the voter (or any other part of the shell, for that matter).

One thing that really annoys me is when debaters go for theory in their NR/2AR for 10 seconds and then move on. Theory is a powerful weapon and requires development in order for it to be voted on.


 * Critical arguments**: I'm fine with critical arguments and am familiar with the basic gist of most arguments by continental philosophers, but I have not read any particular texts. I'll be upset if a debater's rebuttal massively clarifies the dense rhetoric of the constructive. I'm sympathetic to "if you didn't understand/flow it, don't vote on it" types of arguments. I will not vote on an argument that I do not understand.


 * Presumption**: I presume neg, but I am receptive to "presume aff" arguments.


 * Miscellaneous**: I consider myself a pretty animated judge; you'll know if I despise or love an argument. It would be great if you could act accordingly because then we will all be happy.

If you have any other questions, my email is maeshalabid@gmail.com

Good luck and have fun :)