Mason,+Adejoke

Hi! I'm Adejoké, I did four years of high school LD Debate, mostly in the midwest and southeast and pretty often on the national circuit. I currently do college policy at NYU.


 * For those of you scrambling to read through my paradigm as you're rushing to round, the short version is basically: I think debaters should do what they do best, so do whatever you want but don't suck at it and don't be racist.**

For those of you with some time, here's the longer version. My overall philosophy on debate tends to be rather non interventionist, I like to give debaters space to justify how they think the round should be structured, even if that's starkly different from how I structure my rounds (meaning I'm open to whatever type of 'framework' you want to use, be it a v/vc or a roj/rob). I don't have much that I default too so I expect debaters to tell me how to evaluate or the round gets messy. Ex. tell me if and why i'm evaluating T over the K or K over T. (This rule does not apply to blatant racism, sexism, etc. I am super interventionist in those circumstances, you will irritate me, and I will drop you).


 * Speed**: I don't mind it at all. I can understand just about any spread as long as it's clear. That being said, I expect clarity and will say clear if there's an issue. I also think it will probably benefit you to slow down on authors and tags to be 100% sure I catch them, but do you b.
 * Theory/T**: If this is your ace strat, go for it. However, I will say I am rather sympathetic to no abuse claims and find frivolous theory a little irritating. This doesn't mean I won't vote on it if it's clearly won in the round (or if there was legit abuse), but I do tend to err on the side of reasonability when something is extremely frivolous. I can absolutely be convinced to evaluate competing interps, but I do expect work to be done. I also think it's beneficial to slow down on theory so all of the very technical argument interactions and links to the voters are clear, I also probably won't vote on blippy friv interps. RVIs can be won in front of me because i think LD speech times are trash.
 * Policy**: Plans, CPs, Disads - go for it.
 * Phil**: go for it. if its dense explain it well though
 * Ks**: I love K debate! when it's done well. Anyone running a K should know their literature base and be able to clearly articulate it. If you seem unable to explain anything about your K and how it functions outside of throwing around empty jargon, I'll be unconvinced. When it comes to specific types of Ks, I am less familiar with some of the high theory literature, but not entirely unfamiliar. Don't be scared to go for that strat in front of me unless you have a poor understanding of it and can't explain it - if I can't understand it based on your explanations then I won't vote on it. That being said, I will be able to follow it if its clear and will probably enjoy it. When it comes to other ID pol Ks, I am familiar with lots of that literature. I was and am a K debater and love those literature bases, especially when someone does something fun and new with them. The same criteria applies as everything else though, I expect them to be clearly articulated and able to be explained. Just because //I// might know what your author actually says doesn't mean i'll vote on it if //you// don't know.
 * Performance & Non Topical Affs**: I love these too. I find well defended non topical shit to be really interesting. However, they do need to be warranted and well prepared. If you're going to run one but can't defend against an array of negative arguments don't bother. But if you're great at these and know your shit, go for it.

1. I love creativity. Do something different and do it well and I honestly will probably love it. I think one of the best things about debate is the creativity in arguments and the ability to bring in new literature. Varying types of education are part of what makes it great, so I'd love to see something I haven't yet - in whatever style that may be. 2. For the love of god, weigh. Listen, I know it's easy to forget because I'm sure I do it too, but it's crucial. Slay the line by line but then please tell why me why im voting for you and why your impacts matter the most. it's super simple but giving a clean ballot story makes it super easy for me to vote for you (I really don't want and won't do the work for you.) As I said before, I'm open to however you wanna structure the round, but you gotta weigh within that structure. 3. I know lots of you have hella blocks and files on every argument and thats lit, but actually do some interaction with arguments instead of dumping. I'll be a lot more impressed by a debater with less prep who engages each argument deeply and wins them instead of debaters reading dumps with no explanation or specificity to the round.
 * Other notes:**