she/her. For the email chain: sophieb123r@gmail.com Racism, misogyny, homophobia auto loss. I’m a freshman at vanderbilt and in hs read K debate since my sophomore year, but novices should probably read policy stuff (also maybe cap and security?)

Impact out the 2nr/2ar and make it very clear why I’m voting for you, but also why I’m not voting for them. If there is one thing I will say…don’t. drop. the. perm. Extend arguments in the 1ar or I won’t evaluate them in the 2ar (but am definitely sympathetic to the 1ar so just make sure I HEAR it) think of my paradigm as any basic judging philosophy yk?
I have a RAGING rbf but I promise that doesn’t have 2 do w u.

be clear

morr24@gds.org

I'm totally fine with spreading, just make sure you are intelligible. I'll make sure to flow the debate but I'd love to be on the email chain if I need to read over cards.

I have run alot of Identity/kritikal arguments on the aff and neg but will vote on most things policy as well (especially a well-debated CP). Read whatever arguments you want to and have fun!

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

Hello, my name is Adja Seck and I'm an NYU student. I have done debate for over four years having to experience in Parliamentary, congressional, policy, and debate forums. In my debate space, I encourage students and debaters to make sure that they know what they are arguing. I should not have to make assumptions and explain your cards.

I have preferred and seen students running black fem affs and negs that have a discourse over kritiques, plans, and thesis. If students run Topicality cases, I would prefer them to do so with several Kritiques and plans that substitute the failure of the opposing team and solve the topic.

In my rounds, I will not allow card dumps in the last two speeches of the round, nor open cross-fires. The crossfires for me are used to analyze the speaker's quick thinking skills. I take Crossfires into account when assigning speaker scores.

If both teams do not read me solid cases with cards that I have to look over for clarification, I will make a decision using a reform policy-like mindset. I also allow off-time roadmaps

Students of course should be respectful during their rounds and use their time actuality. There will be room for flexibility. I disclose only the student's choices and if there is no time crunch in between rounds.

By the end of the round the winning team will have rebutted all cards,(if able to), presented and carried out cards and assertions that have stood, has been able to read and interpret their case at all moments of the debate, and is respectful to the opposing teams and to the judge, me.

aspechider@gmail.com

I'm fairly certain I set the record for the number of bids with different partners in one year

Will vote on anything, absolutely do not care, just do it well!

Here are some defaults that are overcome by breathing 1 word on them:

- No judge kick (Im just some guy, not a "logical policymaker")

- Inserting rehighlightings is fine

- I will not read your evidence (unless you make arguments about evidence quality, they are contested, and I have no way of resolving it without seeing who is objectively correct)

- Presumption goes in the direction that makes sense (If 0 risk of aff offense in squo, vote neg, if 0 risk of neg offense with CP, vote aff. Again, not a "logical policymaker")

- Absent impact calculus, I will vote for whomever I think accesses a higher relative risk of offense (I think this maximizes the likelihood I am voting for the side that did the better debating, while not subjectively determining what that better debating is)

- Aff theory outweighs negative Ks (I think FW meaning Ks are at the same level is a very reasonable argument, but you have to make the argument)

Other stuff:

Personal callouts, in-round discrimination, and evidence (un)ethics are all bad and will not be evaluated offense-defense but rather based on my own subjective understandings of things