Hasnoo,+Saieed

I debated for 4 years CX at Bronx Science and I am an Economics student at Harvard.

My general philosophy is that debate should be conducive to the ultimate dissemination of information in a real-world and applicable context. To elaborate, I strongly believe in the educational purpose of this forum, which is for me the most imperative standard. You can speak as quickly as you want as long as I can understand the tags and authors. However, remember that reading 10 off is not as impressive as reading 3 well structured off.

Therefore, my positions on arguments are as follows:

**Disads ** – The impact and brink should be clearly articulated. It is very important to weigh the impacts of the disad against those of the case. A clear timeframe should be given in regards to how the passage of the plan would lead to nuclear war.

**Kritiks ** – Kritiks can be interesting and enlightening if articulated well. The negative team should be very much prepared to explain to me, and the other team, what the //real world// implications of the kritik are. Also, if you are going to run a kritik, it is probably a good idea to run framework so that I have a clear understanding of how the negative team thinks the round should be analyzed.

**CPs – **I am all for counterplans. In fact, I think that the counterplan/net benefit/DA – plan/harms debate is one of the most compelling aspects of policy. A clearly articulated counterplan provides a good way to evaluate the importance of passing the affirmative plan.

**Topicality – **I have a very high threshold for T. I believe that T has become an over-utilized tool in the policy debate world. That being said, I will fairly evaluate a T violation if there is very clear evidence of abuse. Again, it should come down to education. I think everyone in the room would learn more from a CP 2NR-2AR than a T speech. As a general rule – do not go for 5 different positions in the 2NR. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, I would prefer if it is your sole position given that, in order for me to vote on it, T requires an extensive explanation.

**Theory** - In general, I find theory to be counterproductive to substantive debate. Yes, debate is a sport and there are rules. However, I will evaluate theory in instances wherein there is clear abuse (e.g. the neg runs a conditional counterplan and 2 conditional kritiks).

**Case – **Unless you are going for an all out kritik negative, there should be some case debate in the 1NC. If you run a DA, you should run some case arguments as well.

**For the aff – **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I am comfortable with evaluating “alternative” cases that critique aspects of policy debate, as long as the implications of voting aff/neg are clearly explicated.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.0001pt;">Ultimately, if both teams walk away having learned something during the debate, then I consider that both sides have gained something.