Asad,+Asad

School Strikes: JQUS; Rufus King

__Background__ Asad Asad debated for four years (2003-2007) at Rufus King High School in Milwaukee. He’s advanced to the outrounds of many national-level tournaments, including The Glenbrooks, Harvard, Gonzaga, UMICH, and Valley, with speaker awards at Gonzaga (3rd), Harvard (7th), Valley (13th), and UMICH (19th). In 2007, he won the National Catholic Forensic League National Championship in Policy Debate. He’s researched a range of arguments during and after his debate career. He is currently a graduate student at Harvard University.

__Judging Philosophy__

//Overview//: I view debate as an activity where the debaters should have say over what happens. That being said, I vote for whoever makes the smartest and clearest arguments. In other words, if you know what you’re talking about, I’m your judge. Stick with what arguments are good for you to run, so long as you explain them to me in relation to the whole debate, not just each speech. In other words, anything you want to do is fine if you know what you're talking about. Speed is no problem.


 * __A Few Caveats__**

//Topicality/Theory// A wise lab leader of mine once told me to get rid of "wasteful" arguments during the 1NC. This means that if you run topicality, the violation has to be good, specific to the plan, and not just to the resolution. Go beyond the typical “They’re not topical, which means they should lose” debate. Tell me why their violation is important in context of the entire debate community instead of just the round. Potential abuse can be a voter, competing interpretations might be good, and reasonability can be a good argument. Again, it all depends on what you’re comfortable with arguing and how you convey that to me.

Theory can be evaluated in the same light. Give me an interpretation and why yours is better than theirs. I would prefer to hear two or three well articulated reasons as to why conditionality (or whatever) might be good, instead of fourteen one-line arguments that are never really explained.

I have no preferences on the nature of the counterplan (dispositional, conditional, topical, non-topical). I leave that up to the debaters. I really do appreciate a good CP debate.
 * Counterplans**

AFFIRMATIVES: please don’t forget to extend your case impacts and weigh them against the negative’s impacts. Generally, yours are big enough to outweigh theirs when articulated well enough. Compare the quality of your evidence to theirs, and articulate the reasons why your case might circumvent the disadvantage’s impacts. NEGATIVES: I don’t care what you run, just make it sensible and articulate a clear link. Overviews work, but by the 2NR, your overviews should be more than just an explanation of what the DA is. Make __comparative__ arguments (why your DA subsumes their advantages or why your impact happens faster). Politics is fine, but just make it sensible. BOTH SIDES: debates about the warrants within the evidence and why yours might be better will go a long way towards boosting your speaker points.
 * Case versus DAs**

Overall, they’re a useful strategy. Here are a few things for both sides to remember:
 * Kritiks**

AFFIRMATIVES: don’t let the negatives rob you of your case. Weigh your case impacts against their critical impacts and tell me why even if I vote negative, the alternative still allows X, Y, Z to occur, which is bad for some reason. If you’re the one reading the K, **please have a plan text**.

NEGATIVES: the biggest flaw with negative teams running the K is that they usually explain the link in relation to the resolution, instead of the 1AC. Make your 1NC specific to the affirmative case/advantages, and how they specifically cause the implications to occur. A policy alternative is much more convincing than a utopian one. Have link-level explanations going for you from the 2NC-on, and never assume that I know more than you do…it may or may not be true. Don’t take that risk.

Do whatever you want. Have fun. Be fast. Be clear. Be smart. No cheating.
 * Conclusion**