Nanji,+Iqraz

Iqraz Nanji School: The Barstow School

I debated for four years at Barstow and now am a second-year student at Columbia University. My partner and I made it to the TOC our senior year.

To say that I have no argument preference is a lie. Nearing the end of my debate career, my negative strategies were heavily reliant on ontology critiques and our aff was full on hegemonic propaganda. That being said, I am willing to listen to anything in the spectrum (or outside of it). Here are some argument specifics:

The aff-- Do what you want as long as you can explain it. If you're not reading a run of the mill argument, I will hold you at a higher threshold mostly because I'm not all too aware of the intricacies of this topic.

Topicality -- if you think about it, T debates are--and should be--about limits. I would much rather have the debate be centered on offensive claims about debate pedagogy and how your interpretation accesses it best than the generic reasonability v. competing-interps battle. The debate will inevitably be about competing-interps... so you may need a more strategic lens to frame this argument. This may sound a bit neg biased but look at it through this lens: the limits argument makes your reasonability argument offensive -- use it for your benefit.

Theory -- In most cases I will lean towards rejecting the argument and not the team, though I can be persuaded otherwise. Don't read your generic blocks--be innovative with arguments.

Counter-plans -- CPs are precious resources! If you have a specific CP, it can and will get you far in the debate--mostly because aff teams don't know how to engage them. I've read and gone for a wide set range of PICs, Process CPs, and shoddy internal net benefits, so I am willing to vote on "tricks" as long as they are executed well with warrants and all. That being said, don't base your strategy off of cheap shots, for quality of argumentation is optimal.

Disadvantages/Case Turns -- DAs are good. My DA background is heavily politics oriented. Case turns are available for practically any argument--an easy go to when you don't have much to say against the aff.

Critiques -- When it comes to critique literature, I am most familiar with ontology critiques. This includes: Heidegger, Environment/Neolib, Security, Irigaray, and OOO. That being said, you can definitely read any K you want... Given that K lit is always lacking somewhere, don't be scared to get innovative! Use K tricks (be upfront), mix-and-match relevant literature (be ethical), spin your arguments into more than they are (be smart). I love it when people transform vague critique evidence into something a lot more than there is in the evidence--this will definitely get you better speaks (again, if executed well). Nevertheless, don't think that you can totally get away without specifics -- warrants matter and usually allow for tactically better debates.

Framework (vs. K) -- Framework debates usually get bogged down in rejection discourse... I usually will not vote to reject all critiques from debate. An infinitely better way to engage with this argument is accessing offense through the frame the critique uses. Tell me why your aff is ontologically, epistemologically, or pedagogically (etc.) better than the neg.

Framework (vs. K-aff) -- Teams that read unorthodox policy affs usually know how to debate their framework arguments better than most others. This means that your arguments will have to specifically engage what they say. I'm not going to say much here because I want you to engage this in whatever manner you want.

CX -- Ask specific questions in CX and be a bit aggressive when you are calling into question bad arguments. Be mean, but don't be an ass.

I don't have a predisposition in the tech vs. truth debate. What I really enjoy in rounds is witnessing how teams strategize and make decisions in round. So don't go for your best argument; instead, go for the best argument for the situation you are in. But, debate is about taking risks: even if you don't have great evidence or aren't winning the tech but you feel that you are on the right side of the issue, go for it. I will call for evidence at the end of the round, mostly for aesthetic purposes.

If I catch you stealing prep, I will deduct speaker points.

Flashing evidence will be off-prep. Don't clip cards! Disclose! Flow!

If you have any more questions, ask me before the round.