Camara,+Youssouf

4 years as a debater means that I’m at least adequately well versed in a variety of arguments.

Traditionally a game theory judge, I think of debate as an intrinsically beneficial competition, so I will evaluate T and framework around that.

I really like well-argued Ts but really hate mediocre violations.

Disads/advs are as big as you make them.

I’m relatively fine with Ks as long as they make sense and I think that the little imaginary world you work in isn’t too abusive.

I don’t have a purely offense-defense paradigm; I can be persuaded to evaluate the round in any way. Love Impact calc, warrant analysis, overviews, and all that good stuff.

Please don’t be boring, this is still a public speaking activity so you know to know how to keep me awake. I’m pretty rational and fair so I think you can guess the rest.