Nanjee,+Nasir

Woodward Academy Class of 2012, debated all four years in high school
 * Background**

- You can't win DA turns case if you're not winning the rest of the DA - Go for the K if you're good at it (if you're questioning whether or not you're good at it, you're probably not) - I LOVE well-crafted negative strategies - will reward with speaker points - Process is probably bad (60/40) - Intrinsicness is true - Don't cheat - Be nice
 * tl;dr:**
 * -** I have a lot of opinions about a lot of arguments, but I won't let my opinion of the argument factor into my decision
 * -** Most Politics DAs are logically incoherent/nonsensical (I'll still vote on it)

Topical affirmatives are good. Topicality violations that exclude a specific affirmative are probably not predictable. I don’t think topicality should be read in the 1NC if it’s a throwaway—it should only be read if they can be a viable 2NR strategy.
 * Topicality**

Process/agent/consult counterplans are alright. Advantage counterplans/counterplans that solve the affirmative without doing the plan are your best bet with me. It is the affirmative's burden to prove that the counterplan is not competitive. Affirmatives need to do a better job of pointing out the internal link distinction for advantage counterplans. Plan Inclusive Counterplans can be strategic. Solvency advocates are a necessary component of a functioning counterplan.
 * Counterplans**

I think that both "uniqueness controls the direction of the link" and "link controls the direction of uniqueness" are equally incoherent arguments.
 * Disadvantages**

Politics: Politics DAs are usually an incoherent mess but somehow negative teams spend 2 minutes on DA outweighs and turns the case in the 2NR and still win the debate. The weakest portion of any given politics DA is the internal link. This is two-fold: first is political capital—after extensive research about political capital theory, I am convinced that it has little to no effect on the way members of Congress vote on bills. Affirmatives need to do a better job of making these compartmentalization arguments (Edwards, Dickinson, etc.) and poking holes in the DA. Just because the negative has specific bill evidence that says “Obama’s bully pulpit is key” doesn't necessarily mean that the theory is correct. Chances are those cards are from the media which is pretty biased. Qualified experts who have done research about the theory of political capital>staff writer at the Washington Post who thinks that Obama’s PC=(x scenario) will pass. Second is the actual internal link—it is highly unlikely that nuclear war hinges on a single bill in Congress. Uniqueness is also a pretty big problem for the negative, and cross-ex of the 1NC is a GREAT time to point this out—there is a very low probability that their uniqueness evidence makes a conclusive claim about a certain scenario passing, and if it does then the plan probably doesn't do anything about it.

Aside from the above rant about how politics sucks, I will vote on it if debated well.

Other DAs: I love a good DA/case debate. The more the DA interacts with the case, the better. That means specific DA turns the case arguments are persuasive, assuming that you’re winning the rest of the DA. Impact turns are also a very good idea—just don’t let them get too muddled.

The more specific they are, the better off you are. The best way to win on a critique is to isolate specific links to the plan. Representations probably shape reality, but I can be persuaded otherwise. The affirmative should be able to weigh their impacts against the critique. Affirmative frameworks that exclude critiques are stupid. Plan Inclusive Critiques are cheating, but sometimes strategic. That’s a debate that can go either way in my mind. Alternatives to critiques that are “reject the affirmative and their discourse” are dumb and don’t mean anything. Specific alternatives that are outlined in the solvency evidence for the alternative can get you pretty far in a critique debate.
 * Critiques**

I love cross-ex—it is a great place in the debate to point out the major flaws in your opponents’ arguments and make the arguments less persuasive. Don't yell at me. I don't like being yelled at. Cross-ex is integral and strategic cross applications to flows will help you a lot.
 * Cross-ex**


 * Theory**
 * I would much rather evaluate a substance debate than a theory debate*. Here are specifics:

Conditionality—one conditional world is okay. I'm sort of on the fence for two conditional worlds. I think that if they're contradictory, the strategy could still be strategic. If you want me to vote for you on conditionality make sure the arguments are well-developed in the 2AC and clearly extended in the 1AR.

Dispositionality—doesn't really make sense to me as an argument

Intrinsicness—Good

No neg fiat—stupid

International fiat—bad, but not a reason to reject the team

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer
 * Misc**

Cheating/card clipping will not be tolerated

(Stolen from Jason Sigalos's Judge Philosophy) Presumption goes to less change, not necessarily the negative.

It is the burden of the team advancing the argument to both explain their position and prove that it is correct. The affirmative needs to win their advantages; the negative needs to win their DA.

I am very willing to grant absolute defense, especially if I feel an argument is silly.

Smart analytics = good. You don’t need evidence to make an argument.

Evidence v. Debating—if an argument is conceded and explained (or if one team is out-debating another), I won’t look to evidence. If arguments are well contested (at the margins), evidence is very important to me. Better evidence > more evidence. Evidence > spin.

Questions? Email me at nanjee.nasir@gmail.com