Yamout,+Gabi

La Costa Canyon/Leucadia Independent 2012-2016 Emory University 2016-present

Yes, I want to be on your email chain: gabi.yamout1@gmail.com

Above all, be nice and don’t cheat! Debate should be fun, not hostile. Let's all try to not cut each other off in cx or be assholes.

Some things I believe:
 * tech > truth
 * debate is a game
 * an argument has a claim, warrant, and impact
 * line by line is important
 * try or die is a bad way to make decisions
 * zero risk is possible
 * all my ballot does is signal a win and a loss to tabroom

Affs: I enjoy and strongly prefer debates where the affirmative reads a plan text. If you choose not to, I would prefer it if your affirmative has a strong tie to the topic.

Framework/T-USfg: Yes. Impact comparison is extremely important. I think fairness is an impact. I am annoyed when the 2AC vs fw is a long string of unexplained disads. I am also annoyed when the negative ignores the case debate. Listening to Antonio 95 makes me sad.

Kritiks: I do not read very much high theory literature. This is because I do not like high theory literature. Do good, specific link work, and make smart turns case arguments. You are unlikely to convince me that the K should be rejected on face, or that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the implementation of their plan.

Topicality: Love it. Have a clearly articulated vision of what the topic would look like under both interpretations. Reasonability is best articulated as an argument for aff predictability. Again, impact comparison is important. You should assume I know little about the HS topic - that means your examples (eg what affirmatives the aff's interp would allow) need to be explained.

Counterplans: The more specific, the better. Aff teams should not be afraid to go for theory against counterplans that are theoretically suspect. I like advantage counterplan debates.

Disads: There is nothing I love more than disads. Topic disads are beautiful. I'm a fan of the politics disad (though it may not be intrinsic). Impact turns are A1.

Misc:
 * I don’t have a strong opinion about conditionality.
 * The shorter your overviews, the better your speaks.
 * More evidence comparison!
 * Create as much spin as you can - control the way I look at issues and pieces of evidence.
 * Death is almost certainly bad.
 * If a team asks to use prep to ask more cx questions, feel free to say no. And no, you can't use your cx as prep. I have no idea why flex prep has become more of a norm, but I don't like it.
 * Once again, don't be an asshole.