Moosajee,+Zafar

Topicality — I tend to have a much higher threshold for voting on topicality than the average judge, I believe that topicality should be evaluated in competing interpretations framework and believe that reasonability is the single worst standard to evaluate by. I accept critical arguments as a legitimate form of offense to address topicality.

Disads —Disads are great, I love a good politics disad. When combined with a Cp or good on case arguments that that’s fine. I can’t see why I should need to write more about why disads are good, I can’t conceive of a scenario when I would immediately dismiss a disad out of hand. As for specific arguments, the link and uniqueness debates are where I would like to see the most work. However this should not be to the determent of your impact analysis, normally what happens is people only do large amounts of impact work with little or no link/uq work; this is where I would like to see the most work.

Counterplans — I like counter plans. I’m a bigger fan of well thought out, specific CPs, but if you feel like running XO or your agent CP, that’s fine. With a generic CP, tailor your analysis to the aff. I love a good PIC, as long as it is competitive, illegitimate PIC’s like do plan but minus 100 soldiers. Unless you can prove why those 100 soldiers are the best thing in the world I am going to be very sympathetic to the aff. I'm generally not a fan of consult CPs, and I think I have been successfully convinced that international fiat isn't cool either. Keep in mind, however, that these are my defaults. They don't mean that you can't win my ballot on a CP I don't like

K’s — I was a K debater in high school, I read Nietzsche, among others. In addition to that after high school I majored in philosophy so, I am very well read in a vast amount of the K lit, to name some authors who I have read: Derrida, Zizek, Foucault, Freud, Zupanchic, D&G (anti-o), kant, plato, and a bunch more ask me in round if you have a esoteric K it is quite possible that I have read your author before.

K aff's - I like them. I ran kritikal aff's, and I tend to find them among the more interesting and creative trends in debate. Just don't rely on tired, rehashed phrases like in K's on the neg. And don't shy away from the topic. I think in many ways its possible to advocate topical action in ways that feed your kritik. Also, see my above stuff about T.

Non-traditional debate — I am very divided on this, on the one hand the K debater in me feels like this is a perfectly legit form of affirming (or negating) the rez. However, how fair this is for the neg is questionable. As long as there is a legitimate way for the neg to engage the aff in whatever form they want and as long as clash exists then the fairness abuse claims from the neg go away.

Speed—I can handle speed fine, when I am flowing I can usually get about 140wpm. If you are not clear however I will tell you “Clear!” I really hate when people cant articulate the author and date, even if I don’t catch your tag, I listen to cards so I will construct a tag of my own off of the warrants that I hear in your card.

Theory—Good theory debates are few and far between, however I do enjoy them very much. The issue most people make when debating theory is the neg reads their block the aff then reads their answers, without addressing the points that the neg made at all. What needs to happen is people need to answer and clash with the points that the other team is making rather than just reading a block.