Shakoor,+Rahim

Qualifications: I am a junior at Northwestern University. This is my second year coaching Wayzata. I have lab led at the NDI. I have judged a LOT of high school debates this year and do a lot of politics research.

Round judged this year (Oceans): ~60

Many of the debate styles of great Northwestern debaters, when you imagine them, are what I want to see in debate rounds. Specifically:

While skills such as spin and persuasion are important, in my mind good, well researched strategies are a better option than a generic you are comfortable with. Good cards, being well prepared, and having a solid knowledge about the topic impress me. Big, technical, debates where both teams are on top of their games, making a lot of argument comparisons and evidence indicts are what I like the most. This displays itself in my favorite arguments, which are deterrence, space militarization, prolif good, imperialism K, and overheating (any country). Bonus points to anyone that can teach me something interesting during the round that I didn't already know.
 * Argument Preferences:**

There are a lot of affs about biodiversity, disease, and science in general. I am a biology major. If you deploy these arguments right and get the science right, I will love you. If you butcher the science, I will know, and I will hate you.
 * Addendum for Oceans***


 * Theory:**

Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. Competition based on normal means is sketchy at best. Fiat by actors other than the USFG are questionable, but that merely means the theory debate is winnable by either side, not that I am particularly biased in either direction. One conditional world is definitely good, two probably is, any more than that, and you start pushing it. If the aff wins the disad links to the counterplan, but does NOT give me reasons to stick the negative to the counterplan, I default to the status quo.


 * Topicality:**

It's about competing interpretations. This means that the team with the most limiting interpretation usually wins, but this is due to affirmative teams usually not questioning the thesis that over-limiting is good, rather than me believing that limits is the trump-all impact. Definitions, especially precise ones, will do wonders for either side. I think predictability is a threshold - if you convince me that your interpretation meets that threshold and the other teams interpretation does not, you're probably in good shape even if your interpretation is a bit overlimiting.

Depends on the critique. Links that are specific to the aff as possible are great. The surveillance K against the satellites aff, or the neoliberalism K against the oil drilling aff makes intuitive sense as ground against affs. Taoism against every aff you debate this year, not so much. Aff teams should press the alternative and impact debate as much as possible, and above all else, win. your. aff.
 * Critiques:**


 * Other thoughts:**

Cross examination is a speech that I value a lot. Its an important place to generate link arguments, and make affirmative advantages and negative DAs look dumb. Speed is good, but pleeeeease be clear. It's a communicative activity. Obviously, like every other judge says, compare and impact arguments, I try to do as little work as possible.