Lloyd,+Zhane

Pronouns: she/her/hers Yes, include me on the email chain. I debated briefly (and I mean briefly) for Brooklyn Tech and I’ve been debating for three years at NYU and that somehow makes me qualified to judge. So, wish me luck. I don’t mind speed, but when you read tags, slow down. I need to understand what you’re saying because it’s going on my flow. This is especially true if there is no email chain I will be a part of. If it’s not on my flow, I’m not going to evaluate it. If there are frequent references of cards (i.e. “Cross-apply so and so card to the K flow), I expect the warrants of the card to be explained and why I should evaluate it.

As a general rule of thumb, I don’t like T or any theory argument. I absolutely LOATHE high theory. I get enough of it in my classes. With that being said, if it's explained well enough, there is a slim chance I'll vote on it. I'm a lot more lenient when it comes to topicality or framework, but they still don't rank high on my favorite arguments.

Even though I lean towards Ks, I do not know all of the scholarship, so I expect that to be well explained in the debate. That should be a good rule of thumb regardless to be honest. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a traditional disad or counterplan – I am willing to vote on those as well. I do not mind, and actually encourage, calling out microaggressions that happen in the round. However, I need to know why this microaggression is a reason to vote them down. Is it a reason a permutation doesn’t work? Is it a reason the affirmative can’t solve? Does it make their kritik null and void? I need an explanation.

I know that Cross-X tends to be the tensest part of debate. I don’t mind aggression, but there is a difference between being aggressive and being rude. I hope you would know the difference. Anyway, I’m looking forward to judging.