Yared,+Alexander


 * Alexander Yared**
 * Lexington High School '12**
 * Tufts University '16**

I did four years of Policy Debate at Lexington High School on the national circuit, and am now doing Parli at Tufts. To be quite honest, I would much rather still be doing Policy, but it's the only debate Tufts. I debated with Bennett Clifford my senior year, and my philosophy is pretty much the same as his, and the vast majority of other Lexington kids, so I will keep it brief.

Do what you want to do in a debate. If you are having fun running an argument and know a lot about it, I'll enjoy watching it. I prefer case specific arguments regardless of whether you are talking about T, a Kritik, and especially in the case of DA's. That being said, XO politics were always in the Lexington tool kit, and I'm okay with generics IF you really have nothing else to say and have specific links.
 * General Things:**

In my opinion, the smartest strategy on the neg is a case specific DA and case. The reason for this, in the words of Eli Jacobs, who is a very smart man and you all should listen to him, is that in the instance of a case debate the burden of proof is on the Affirmative. As soon as you introduce a CP/K you have taken on the burden of proof, which is just more work for you to do. Unless your CP actually solves all of case, or your Kritik is absolutely devastating, save yourself the trouble. This is, however, more along the lines of a 2NR choice, a 1NC should absolutely be diverse and have lots of options to go for.

Being out of the high school circuit, you should assume that I don't know that much about the topic. Explain abbreviations, policies etc. If you're going for the same old silly debate arguments (ASPEC) and winning on it, I'll vote for you but I can guarantee that I won't enjoy doing it. Do what you like to do, explain everything thoroughly and you will be all set. Easier said than done, so that's what the specific sections are for.

Things that I like: Good CX questions, case specific arguments, science (more on that later), IR debates, IMPACT CALC WOOO Things that I don't like: stupid theory arguments, clipping/cheating, people who pronounce hegemony as heg-eh-moan-ee


 * T/Theory:**

Not my favorite arguments by far, but I will vote for them. T is a voter, and most certainly not a reverse voter. I will default to whatever standards are gone for in the round, and these should be really fleshed out. The easiest way to win a T debate in front of me is to treat it as you would a DA: weigh impacts, talk about how different parts of a T debate interact with each other. If you're just reading off your blocks I probably won't be all that interested. In the end T debates are really only interesting if they contain actual specific arguments about the Aff, and not just your generic BUT ZOMG YOU'RE NOT SUBSTANTIAL arguments. Theory is pretty much the same in that if you want to actually go for it you have to do a bit more work than most high school debaters do. That being said, I'm a much better judge for a T debate than a theory one. I will certainly vote for theory if you go for and/or it is dropped, but I tend to think that conditional counterplans are a good thing, dispo is a bit goofy etc.


 * Counterplans:**

Counterplans are great, the more specific the solvency advocate the better. On the neg: the risk of the NB must be greater than the risk of a non solved for advantage, you have the burden of proof for solvency and for competition, and a well written CP text can be pretty devastating. On the aff: The CP linking to the NB is a yes or no question, I can go either way on consult/condition/process counterplans. If it is sneaky AND has actual solvency evidence I will probably like it. If it doesn't, I probably wont.


 * DAs:**

Also awesome, went for them all the time. Once again, the more specific the better. In fairness, I will probably vote for PC based politics a lot, and against intrinsicness a lot. I don't think that Uniqueness determines the Link, and I do think that it is entirely possible for an Aff to not link. Not much to say about DAs other than very good impact analysis on DA turns/solves case can be a perfect tie breaker in a close round, and that analysis gets better the higher it moves up the link chain.


 * Kritiks:**

I was never a K person in high school, but I do think that they can be really fun and effective. If you are good at Ks you should certainly read them and go for them in front of me, but you should probably be a bit more thorough with your explanations. On the aff, trying to frame a K as something which needs a policy alternative and is super invasive to debate will not get you very fair. I think that examining the underlying ideas about why we do things is smart, and you should "be able to defend your assumptions". If you are going for something less generic/more out there in front of me you will have to do a lot of work to make me comfortable with it. I default to being a policy maker unless convinced otherwise, and I do think that many Aff teams let the Neg get away with murder on framing the ballot.


 * Case:**

The underused weapon of the negative. If you have someone's number on their case, by all means please go for it. If someone is reading an Aff that you just know more about than they do, show me. A couple good cards on case can also make winning your DA/K much much easier. On the affirmative: you case is your baby, defend it as such. You should always know more about your case than the other team does, and use that fact to your advantage. Prove why all of their arguments don't apply/ don't matter in the context of what you are saying. You should always, always, weigh your case. In the end, a debate round is by definition an evaluation of whether or not your case is a good idea.

Science was my thing in high school debate. I am studying Electrical Engineering, and I think that high school debaters are probably the worst cheaters in the history of science. Especially on the space topic, the vast majority of affs made all of 0 sense. If, and only if, you know what you are doing and have good evidence, you can in some instances mitigate arguments by using science. If you do not know what you are doing, don't go for science based arguments because I will probably end up bashing my head against the desk.


 * Performance/No Plan Affs:**

I will take this directly from Mr. Clifford, as he sums up my opinion perfectly - " The ballot, and therefore, the judge, should not in any circumstance be forced to be on the side of exclusion. The role I am most comfortable assuming is that of a US policymaker- but that’s up for debate, as is everything else. If you’re neg against a team that kritiks the topic, I’d honestly prefer that you actually engage the aff, and not just go for framework. Clash of civilizations debates are a strange combination of hostile and boring, and they make me want to gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon. If there’s one thing that I don’t give two squirts of piss about is whether Mitchell concludes aff or neg, or having to read Shively over and over and over again. There are whole academic sections devoted to subjects like Critical Race Theory, Science Fiction, or Gender Studies- there is no excuse for not innovating against these affs. If you are reading an aff that does not defend the resolution, however, I'd prefer the resolution and its structure to be somewhat inculcated in your kritik. Innovation is, after all, a two-way street. I'm an atrocious judge for you if the core of your project is just to talk about how debate (in the general sense) is bad for 8 minutes- in that scenario, I'll definitely pull the plug on FW. Affirmatives that present specific arguments about why being forced to debate the transportation topic is bad are much, much less likely to lose on those arguments."

In the end, have fun, do what you do, and sound smart

-Yared