Rahman,+Rokeya

School Strikes- University High, Newark Science Park HS

I am a policy-maker unless I’m told otherwise. With that said:


 * T**- I evaluate competing intp unless there is an obvious abuse in the round.


 * K**- I have a higher threshold for K’s. I want solid link and alt stories from the 2nr. Framework arguments are key; however I’ve seen too many generic policy good v kritiks good framework debate. I need the 2nr to specifically tell me what my role of the ballot is, how that functions in round, post-round, all in the context of the aff. Same thing with critical affs.

I believe that affirmatives should be a topical representation of the resolution. Therefore, for any non-topical performance/critical affs, I might not be the judge for you.

Speed is ok; however, when reading topical and theory, I'd prefer if debaters go slower than normal. I'll only say clear once and then if you're still not clear, then it will be up to your partner to tell you to slow down. If it's not on my flow, it's not in the round.

Since this a public speaking activity, I prefer all debaters to **stand when speaking** and to __**be nice**__ in the rounds. I seriously dislike it when debaters who are rude to their opponents (or anyone else) and it will definitely hinder your speaker points.