Alsheikh,+Nader

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:

The good news: I have not judged any debates on this topic, which probably makes me easy...to impress.

For the most part, I can’t imagine caring about what you do so long as you do it well. Well-researched strategies are the most engaging types of debates. In illustration, among my favorite types of debates to watch are specific, well-researched PIC debates. Additionally, I’ll adjudicate debates by determining who made arguments using more and better evidence (on the most essential questions). Finally, for accountability's sake, I will flow the debate and use my flow to determine the winner.

Here are a few more specific and noteworthy points:

1. Good impact analysis is invaluable (especially in rebuttals). Contextualizing and analyzing weighing mechanisms will probably make your argument more persuasive. 2. Arguments regarding the other team's strategic shortcomings help me help you. Preemptive work goes a long way in the last two rebuttals. 3. Good, warranted evidence is useful. Effectively using evidence is equally important particularly in cross-examination. 4. Arguments should be politically (or substantively) sensible. 5. Alternatives/Counterplans should be competitive. 6. Debate is good fun; y'all should act accordingly.