Faruki,+Yasmin

Experience: Debated four years in high school. Transitioned from LD to policy after my first year and started traveling nationally with Capitol Debate my junior year. Last debate: May 2011 Strikes: Capdeb (Centennial, River Hill, Howard, Mt. Hebron, etc.) and T.C. Williams High School

I don’t have an aversion to any particular position. Like anyone, I have preferences, but I will vote for almost anything if you explain it well and if it makes sense to me.

Affirmative

I’ve been a 2A/1N for most of my debate career. I ran kritikal-policy affs, so I will be especially receptive towards these. The 2AC is a really important speech. Slow down if you need to be clear.

Other general thoughts: - Impact analysis is really important in the 2AR - Defend the assumptions of your plan - Use cross-x to explain the structure of your aff - Don’t perm DAs

Neg

Topicality: I’ve never been a fan of topicality. If the aff falls reasonably within the scope of the resolution, I would like to consider it to be topical. But if you love T, go for it. Make sure you have really good evidence and a strong impact debate. Explain why the affs interpretation of the resolution is limiting and why that limitation is bad for debate.

DAs: I like politics a lot because I appreciate the type of research that goes into it. This is obviously a great time to run politics. I am not as up to date on the election as I would like to be, so again, explain every argument you make clearly.

Generally for any DA, I care most about links and internal links. No matter how good your impact analysis is, I will not grant you a risk of the DA if your link story is weak. If you make a compelling link story I will give you a low threshold for risk.

Kritiks: I ran race/gender/security in high school. You do not have to run an alternative if you can prove a. the link to the aff is clear and b. the impacts outweigh the affs. That said, I am not receptive to all Ks. I would rather hear a muddled T debate then listen to D&G or Heidegger.

CPs: I don’t really have a preference for or against CPs.

Performance: I’ve never been keen on performance. However, I did debate under the tutelage of Daryl Burch, so I will obviously not vote against performance by default. You need to explain what is wrong with the current state of debate and why your model improves it. On the neg, I will give you a much harder time because you need to explain a link to the affirmative. If you just say why not talking about x issue is bad, I will likely vote against you.

Have fun! Though I decided not to continue debate in college, I have tremendous respect for this activity. Contact me if you questions about anything.

ytf2@georgetown.edu