Ullah,+Mohammad

Mohammad Ullah High School: Stephen F. Austin High School (Sugar Land) High School Debate Experience: 4 years LD 3 years Oratory 4 years Extemp Impromptu College: University of Houston Current Debate Team: None Rounds judged this year: 150 Years Judging: 3 Current Job: Judge/Mentor Other info: Best debate is a balanced debate. Don't need to follow every single paradigm to win a round; just go for what's most important clearly.

Paradigm - Order of importance : Framework, evidence comparison, Impact calculus On a scale of 1 (Traditional) and 11 (Kritikal) - 7 Favorite Debate Argument: Discourse Kritiks Least Favorite Argument: Spreading Kritiks Won't vote on: 4 min. 1AR Theory Shells Spreading Kritiks Arguments with no impact to them

Other broad preferences: Ask me specifically for your event. Signposting and sticking to your roadmap is important

Specifics - Likely to vote on (1 is low, 5 is high) Topicality 5 Theory 3 Disads 5 Counterplans 4 Kritiks 5

A good debate about Topicality Interpretations-Counterinterpretation debates are the most exciting. Clearly, quickly label the impact to T

A good debate about Theory: No skep, RVIs, or NIBS No conspiracy theory level stuff ie "the US directly supports ISIS" Make sure you understand what your author truly says or believes. A good debate about disads: Specific indictment where the opposing team's plan actually does/would trigger the Disad. Find the card or lay out the link chain clearly. Take into consideration current events and understanding of governmental processes; international relations as well. A good debate about counterplans: Definitely have to show me mutual exclusivity if its going to work. I need a net benefit I like a good debate tooth and nail between a CP and a Plan Aff A good debate about Kritiks: Kritiks can be done by BOTH Aff and Neg. There must be an alternative. The alternative ought to be a substitution alt; don't just reject the aff or some ideology; what do you bring as a replacement?

Other specific argument prefences: Claims on postdating evidence needs to be impacted. Author and source comparisons need to be done logically; not in a manner that disparages someone's work.

Other Things: Speed: 5 Their flow: 5 Comments on flowing/speed: I flow on my laptop. I will say clear if need be; if I have have to say more than 2-3 times, I dock speaks.

Gives good speaker points (1 is low, 10 is high) - Self rated- 8 Factors for speaker points: Courtesy Taking turns while speaking Patience Clarity over speed when you can Signposting Slow down on tags and cites

Other: I have equal respect for traditional and progressive styles of debating. No Kritiks in PF. Advocacies in PF are okay.