Farooqi,+Nadeem


 * Debated for Damien High School - 4 years**

Hello everyone! As a general rule of thumb, you should feel free to run whatever you want, as long as you can debate it well. If the the debate is good, I probably will not need to call for all cards; but I will call for relevant ones if it's necessary. That being said, the debate is not as good if you don't clear up issues at the end. So if you think an argument is a round winner, it should be in your final rebuttal //EXPLICITLY//. Furthermore, an argument is supported by evidence - the evidence is not the argument. If you have awesome evidence, but no arguments on the flow, then you really have not debated. That means you should extend specific warrants, not just tags and cites. Good: "They say 'x' but they're wrong because of 'y'. That's Dolman '11. Our evidence is better because of 'z'." Bad: "We're awesome. That's the Marco evidence."

General Preferences: Case debates with disadvantages and/or counterplans. I think these debates are cool. I think these debates are fun. I think you should go for this kind of strategy! But that's just a general preference; you will not lose simply because you don't pander to my whim... But you probably will get higher speaker points if you do.

Counterplans: The negative should, in fact, have fiat (but if the affirmative can prove otherwise, then props to them). Multi-plank Counterplans may be abusive, unless there's an actual solvency advocate. Going for a Counterplan in the 2NR means the central focus of the debate is the Counterplan vs the plan. If the plan's better, the Aff does not need to be compared to the Status Quo. However, if you wish to argue otherwise, then feel free to do so. But do so //EXPLICITLY.//

Kritiks: Are good to have, //IF// they are relevant. I think they can be highly effective, especially when articulated coherently and with sufficient analysis of what should be the central focus of the debate. I also think they can be highly annoying, only if they are articulated very poorly and with no relevant analysis whatsoever. (This is also true of all other arguments, but I have found that this tends to happen more with Kritiks). Furthermore, if the negative reads a Representations Kritik //in addition to// a disadvantage that contradicts their model for representations, I tend to think of their argument as being undermined (if mentioned by the affirmative). Examples of (what I consider to be) Bad Kritikal Shenanigans: "That causes the Holocaust." "Reps shape reality - reject their reps of fear... *30 seconds later* They cause Iran to be more assertive - Global nuclear extinction from an atomic rein of fire." "We're awesome. That's the Marco evidence."

Framework: I start off believing that the affirmative should have a plan/advocacy, and be ready to defend that plan/advocacy. If you wish to argue something different, feel free to; but make sure you do so clearly and coherently.

Topicality: I'm willing to vote for Topicality, especially on such a vast topic. If the violation is genuine and the negative has a lot of evidence to back it up, I'm very willing to vote for Topicality.

Theory: I am inclined to regard a theoretical objection as a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I also think having a Kritik and a Counterplan is probably not abusive. However, I can (as with any other argument) be persuaded otherwise.

Please keep in mind that these are just general preferences. I am open to all types of arguments, as long as they're accompanied by good argu//ing//. Debate is about having fun, so do whatever you think makes the debate fun (and good).