Ahmad,+Haris

Haris Ahmad St. Mark's 2016

"i don't want to read this"
1. **you do you** - i tend to not let any idelogical biases i've developed influence how i think about debate and as such i'd probably rather listen to your best debating of the fiat double bind and death good "argument" than your worst debating of the political capital tradeoff disad (please don't make me regret this…please?) on the other hand, i'm down to listen to the 1nc that is just t politics and filler if that's all you do. also //cough// i really want someone to impact turn the whole 1ac it's a dream and and i'll give you an extra speak cuz you read the philosophy //cough// (no double turns pls.) the caveat to all of this is that experience obviously shapes my understanding of arguments. the best example of this would probably be framework debates. every 1nc i've ever given vs an affirmative without a plan text has been 1 off t-usfg and we won every single one of those debates (try to avoid t-usfg vs teams that read a plan text though)

2. **have fun** - debate is a game and a really fun activity, and it probably should stay just that. that means you probably shouldn't be offensive (neither in argument choice nor in interactions with others) if you want good speaks. be smart (this one's a big plus for speaks), be nice, and remember to try your best…. to not make any grammatical errors.

**__Tech > Truth__**
this shoud be pretty self-explanatory - i think that the flow is probably the best indicator of who wins a debate and as such you should probably flow. this is very hypocritical, because i'm a really bad flow myself but whatever (i promise i'm good enough to catch everything at the novice level.) truth makes arguments more believable / makes me wnat to vote for them more but to quote a philosophy i really like " If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose."

__ **Affirmatives** __ not gonna lie, i'd be happier if you defended the usfg did something topical but if you don't want to that's chill too. i'll obviously vote on framework if the neg debates better. debating "better" means explaining why the pedagogical benefits gained from your vision of debate turns or accesses the aff's offense (hopefully with some form of external impact,) not whining about fairness. this isn't to say fairness isn't an argument but to say that it's more persuasive in some instances than in others - ie i'd buy it more vs a high theory ivory tower aff with no relation to the topic than i would vs the middle passage aff. the aff should probably be able to explain why the negative's interp can't access their offense as to have something external to weigh against the neg's impact. contrary to popular belief, saying "fairness for whom" does not win a framework debate.

__** Topicality **__

__** Kritiks **__

__** Disadvantages **__

__** Counterplans **__

__** Impact Turns **__

__**Ethics**__

if aakash pattabi wasn't really lazy and had a judge philosophy i'd tell you to look at it for a more coherent version of whatever *this* is cats are pretty cool, esp of the coles variety i appreciate all jokes about russians also
 * on a lighter note**