Sadeghi,+Nakisa

I debated for 4 years in high school for National Cathedral School (through Capitol Debate). I’m currently a freshman at UNC Chapel Hill.

I was a 1A/2N throughout my entire high school debate career. I ran a wide range of arguments, from disads to counterplans to Ks to topicality to impact turns. I read a number of policy arguments, like politics and advantage CPs. I also ran a lot of critical arguments, particularly Race and Orientalism. With that in mind, I am honestly receptive to ALL types of arguments as long as they are not a) morally repugnant or b) factually incorrect.
 * General:**

//Topicality, Framework, CP, K, DA, Non-traditional arguments// – do whatever you are best at/most prepared for! I will say, though, that I’m not a huge fan of theory. Unless you feel it’s necessary and you can justify it well, don’t invest too much time in it. Also, I really enjoy listening to specific arguments on case. Even if you decide to read a K, there’s always a way to make your links and turns case arguments specific to the plan/advocacy. High-level debating that draws on subtle connections between arguments will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Competing interpretations vs. reasonability – I can be persuaded either way, but I lean towards competing interpretations.
 * Specifics:**
 * T:** Explain to me why your interpretation is best for debate. What will debate look like if I vote for the aff/neg’s interpretation? Why is this worse than debates under your interpretation?


 * DA:** Love disads. A disad coupled with case defense and turns case analysis is always fun to watch. Both teams should read their opponents’ cards – people don’t call out bad cards often enough when it could have really influenced the decision at the end of the round.


 * CP:** CPs are awesome. Process, condition, consult, international CP – do whatever you’re comfortable doing. CP theory is always a debate to be had and I’m particularly receptive to theoretical arguments against process and international CPs.

I also like critical affirmatives. I ran a number of K affs when I debated, so I’m familiar with some of the literature. If this is your thing, totally go for it.
 * K:** I’ll definitely vote for a K. Like any argument, though, you need to make sure to actually explain all parts of the K. Do not just assume that I know what the link and impacts are to the imperialism K or the cap K. Specificity is prime. I think that too often people run Ks in order to avoid doing specific analysis, but that just ends up hurting them in the end. Explain your stuff!


 * Non-traditional:** I’m totally down with it. Let me know why your vision of debate is superior and what this means for the future of debate. Why is the present state of debate flawed? How do you make it better? Also, if you’re debating against a team that has a similar vision of debate, tell me explicitly what makes yours different and better.


 * Case:** Case debates are great. The more specific you are, the better. Defense can go a really long way, so use it!


 * Theory:** Like I said, I have a pretty high threshold on theory. I generally think that 1 CP and 1 K is ok. Any more than that is definitely debatable - just make sure that you debate theory like any other argument (with clash and go line-by-line).


 * A few things to note:**

1) I am not very familiar with the 2013-2014 debate topic. PLEASE do not assume that I know whatever acronyms you are using, because I most likely will not. Also, please avoid using buzzwords.

2) At the end of the round, I want to know not only whom I am voting for, but also __what__ I am voting for. My ballot is representative of the course of action or mindset that I am endorsing, so please make that clear to me.

3) Debate is called debate for a reason. Don’t rely on the fact that I can call for cards at the end of the round, because if I don’t have a good reason to call for cards, I most likely won’t. Do the analysis for me; cards are there as evidence, but it’s up to you to tie them back to your argument. That being said, bad cards will also affect my decision. For example, if you’re reading a politics DA, make sure that your uniqueness and internal link cards actually say what you claim they say.

4) Cross-ex is valuable speech time. Please make it interesting for me to watch and use it as time to convince me! I flow cross-ex so it will be worth your while.

5) Avoid long overviews. Ask yourself if it really needs to be in a separate overview or if you can put it in the line-by-line. Good line-by-line is infinitely better and so much easier to flow.

6) Clarity is essential. I am perfectly fine with speed as long as you are not just mumbling and making random sounds. This will be reflected in your speaker points, so please be clear!

Feel free to ask me any other questions you have in person J

Last updated on 10/16/13.