Malyugina,+Emmiee

Please start an email chain before the round -- emmiee@berkeley.edu

Relevant Bio Stuff: -- Emmiee Malyugina; Preferred pronouns: she/they/he/Scout Sniper/smol -- basically, I don't care. -- Assistant Coach at Harker -- FYO doing college policy at UC Berkeley -- I did CX for 3 years and LD for 1 year for Harker -- I was at the TOC my senior year in LD -- I ran policy-style args in LD (so think hard left Ks, hard right util trutils, and everything in between), but I have a working understanding of Phil/Theory. I think the more I judge the more I feel like I'm pretty tab on that front. I've voted on tricks/phil/etc so you shouldn't let my past debate experience discourage you from reading those.

Prefs: -- LARP/Util - 1 -- Ks - 1 -- T - 2 -- Theory/Phil - 3/4

Paradigmatic Issues: -- I won't vote for anything that's not warranted -- you can read spikes/a prioris/whatever, but there needs to be some justification -- I default to reasonability/drop the debater -- The only arguments I won't vote on are oppression/racism/sexism good type args (+ unwarranted stuff), which includes asking your opponent to justify why racism/sexism/etc is bad -- I don't like cheating -- disclose, don't clip, don't bracket in spikes into your cards -- Flex prep is cool with me -- Flashing/emailing isn't prep -- compiling the speech doc is -- I don't have a super high threshold for 1AR extensions -- warrant arguments and you're good -- I'm fine with speed and I'll say clear if I need to

Debate Positions: -- Non-T AFFs: I read a lot of non-T AFFs and I also went for T-Implement every time I hit a Non-T AFF. I definitely think that Non-T AFFs have their place in debate, but I'm not going to vote for you just because you read one. You need to have a justification for why you shouldn't have to defend the topic and win on the T flow. If you're reading this because you're planning on going for T against a Non-T AFF, I am a lot more persuaded by TVA/portable skill type claims that actually interact with the AFF than generic procedural fairness type arguments.

-- Ks: I like Ks. I read a fair amount of them. I mostly read identity-based arguments and various flavors of the Cap K, but i'm familiar with most high theory authors and have dabbled more in the pomo side this year. If you don't think you can explain whatever it is you're reading, you probably shouldn't read it -- I really won't want to vote for you if you pull something off Michigan KMs wiki and very clearly have no idea what you're reading and the more I think you don't know what you're saying, the lower the threshold for the 1AR/2AR gets. That being said, unless I feel like the NR is literally incoherent, I'll vote off of poorly explained arguments if they end up being dropped or equally poorly answered.

-- LARP: I LARPed a lot and I'm very comfortable evaluating those types of debates. I like weighing, good quality evidence, etc.

-- Phil: I'm pretty unfamiliar with Phil. If that's your thing, you should read whatever you're most comfortable with, but you'll probably have to do more explaining if it's not Util/Kant/Virtue Ethics.

-- T/Theory: I'm not a huge fan of frivolous theory. The only theory arguments I feel like I personally vibe with are disclosure theory, brackets theory, evidence ethics type claims, etc. That being said, I have also voted off some really heinous interps. I read a lot of T and I'm happy to judge T debates :)

Other good things: -- I'll boost speaks by 0.1 if you mention emus somewhere in your speech and by 0.2 if you roast John Overing :) -- Plz don't be an asshole -- Preferred pronouns are cool and so are trigger warnings -- HMU thru fb for any judge phil questions (Emmiee Malyugina)
 * addendum to that some of y'all are getting rlly into this roasting plz don't actually be mean and keep it in good taste I am somewhat fond of him