Shariff,+Baasil


 * Interpretation of the Round**: My default interpretation of the round is within the lens of a policymaker, evaluating the affirmative plan versus the status quo or a competitive policy option. Obviously if there is an alternative framework, or a clash of two different frameworks I will evaluate the round based upon the winning framework. I believe that the affirmative should defend a stable policy option with a coherent plan text. However, I will not convey any biases within my decision if other types of affirmatives are argued. My default method of risk calculus is based upon an offense-defense paradigm, strictly on the flow and what was argued. Once again, I am not excluding any other method of risk- calculus such as probability-based frameworks; impact calculus should be a focal point of the debate.

Specific Strategies:

**Disad/Status-quo/Counterplan/Case Strategies:** I was a big politics, advantage CP debater for a while. The more specific impact calculus the better. I expect teams to embed the warrants of the disad impacts and clash these warrants to the affirmative advantages. Specific warranted analysis on the case turn debate is a must. In terms of the Counterplan debate I will evaluate whichever policy option is comparatively better, evaluating the significance of the net benefit versus the significance of the aff advantages I will evaluate the case debate within an offense defense paradigm. Also counterplans that fiat uniqueness to disads are effective.

**Kritik:** I have a decent knowledge of typical Kritik author such as Foucault, Said, etc. In order to win a large magnitude of the K, the negative has to win some risk of the K turning case and the alternative solving some form of the affirmative. If teams disregard affirmative advantages and simply argue their K, ill evaluate the k as a non-unique disad. If teams don’t have a substantial alternative, them the K is just a linear case turn. I am completely against generic critiques, unless you can spin a specific link out of it.

**Performances and general criticisms of debate:** I generally find these debates are very general and warrant less. I am willing to listen to any debate but my default framework will remain through the lens of a policy maker unless the round goes in a different direction.

**Topicality:** I generally believe that competing interpretations is the best framework to evaluate topicality. However, I wont dismiss reasonability. It is my opinion that topicality debated should be viewed within an offense defense paradigm, where the end result of the debate establishes affirmative case ground. Limits is the most important standard, which is a gateway to most offense.

**Theory:** Blippy theory arguments are not convincing, and ill always reject the argument not the team (when argued). I generally believe that negation theory and conditionality can be easily defended. Plan inclusive counterplans are in most part competitive. Most consultation counterplans are plan plus, and artificially competitive. However, if the country says no, there can be a case made for competitiveness.


 * Qualifications: ** I have debated for 5 years for Newburgh Free Academy. Qualified for the CLFs for 3 years and reached quarter-finals my sophomore year and the semi-finals my senior year.