Asad,+Saad

I debated LD for 3 years at Esperanza High School in Southern California.

I will not vote on any argument without a warrant even if your opponent didn’t attack it


 * If you don’t weigh, I will intervene.**

//This is a picture of me in a tractor://

Slow down when you read author names. I want you to extend the arguments clearly.

Explain how warrants function in the round. I need to know how to evaluate what happens in the round.


 * THEORY**

Reduce your speed, the standards and the voters are crucial. I dislike theory shells used to avoid clash i.e. theory that excludes kritiks, CPs, etc. I have a much higher threshold for voting on that type of theory than I have with actual abuse (7 a priori, etc). Don't run stupid theory, ask me what stupid theory is in round.

I’m open to both truth-testing and comparative world view of the resolution, but I won’t default either way.

Speed is fine, but I would prefer a few well argued points rather than a huge dump. I will yell clear if I can’t understand you.

For extensions, extend the claim and then explain how it functions in the round. Be explicit where the extension is coming from on the flow.

When in doubt, go for clear argumentation over tricks.

Make sure to layer your arguments during crystallization. For example, explain how you are winning arguments offcase (theory, kritik), then oncase.

Regarding speaker points, if you’re rude or offensive, then I will dock them as much as I can. An easy way to get high speaker points from me is to have a really good cross-x. Cross examinations should have a strategy like every other speech you give. Other than that, I will base speaker points off strategy and word economy along with the few peeves I mentioned above.