Tesfaye,+Fiker

Alright friends, I’m not here to take up your time. Everything below is a formality that you can do whatever with. I’m here because I wanna see something interesting and fun for everyone involved. You can ignore everything here other than “don’t be a jerk” and we’re Gucci. So long as everyone is having a lit time, then no problem. This is your space to take up and do with what you want. For any additional information, or to talk out rounds or arguments, hit ya girl up at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com and we can see what's popping. ** Overall ** PLEASE BE NICE TO EACH OTHER. For the love of God it’s high school debate and let’s not be terrible people to each other in the name of the event. You don’t know what others experience outside of round, so let’s please get along (at least in front of my face). I DO NOT WANT TO DO ANY WORK. By saying that, I don’t want to have overthink where and how to make a decision. I don’t want to have to search down my flow for 20 minutes to find the one obscure argument that separates the aff and the neg. I want to leave as little judge intervention as possible. This is your debate, don’t make it mine. I’m still training my ears to catch taglines so a call for evidence will almost be inevitable. I’m not the most up to date on all things high school debate, so I apologize, but I’ll still listen to what you have to throw at me. Tell a clear story. That helps me to evaluate better and give a clearer RFD. For anyone that cares to know, I debated in LD and policy in high school for two years (one year each) before switching over to entirely interpretation events. I now do debate in college for Texas Tech University. So while I had a weird gap, I’m competent enough in how to evaluate debate. ** Aff ** Super generic or super specifics affirmatives are absolutely great either way, so long as they’re topic directional. If not resolution guided, it should be an ethical indictment or rejection of either the topic as a whole, or of debate itself. Kritikal affirmatives are absolutely great also, especially if you have been disenfranchised in the space. Otherwise, I don’t have super specific things that the aff has to do other than not be abusive so. ** Topicality/Framework/Theory ** I have a decently high threshold. I find myself voting on issues of the problems of debate a lot more than I think, especially if the offensive reasoning is solid. I love a good T debate every once in a while. It’s lit when I get to see this kind of debate throw down. I think Topicality and Framework is to be evaluated under competing interpretations. I will sometimes default to reasonability, but not unless the arguments are more convincing. In the Framework debate against identity arguments, I find these much less compelling in matters of race or sexuality arguments. Wrong forum or “don’t read that here” are questionable answers, especially in a world where most affirmatives and negatives are re-read over and over again. There’s plenty better theory out there to use. As for condo and otherwise, I have my own opinions, but will vote on the best arguments. ** DA/CP ** Read them. I know I’ve read more than I can count or care to admit that I have. I think Uniqueness controls the direction of the link. The more warrants and scenarios the better. CP solvency needs to be solid and solve back for the impacts aff/squo if I really count it. ** Kritiks ** Make your links really specific please. I like specific and tricky Ks that do more on the line by line for you than as a whole story. Hearing a stellar 2 go hard in the paint on the line by line is literally an art form. I don’t think that perms exist in a method debate. I just don’t. This is truly some of my favorite kinds of debate. From Wilderson and anti-blackness to Baudrillard and Marx, I enjoy Ks. I have heard some real weird things in my days, so I’m here for it. Bring it on. However, let’s not make this an “oppression olympics” out here. I don’t think one oppression is objectively worse than another, and that’s also not for anyone to decide.
 * Disclaimer **