Lowe,+Kristen

 Affiliations: Current: Emory University Previous: Sage Ridge School  Tl;dr: Do whatever you want, be nice, work hard. *DEBATE THE CASE*  What you should know about me: I'm a senior at Emory University. I will try my best to put my full effort into judging your debate but feel inclined to work harder as a judge for debaters who are working harder. Show that you care about what you're doing, respect the people around you (I cannot emphasize this enough), and enjoy yourselves. The best debaters are the ones who demonstrate an intellectual commitment to this activity and a personal commitment to the people around them. I believe in this above everything else in this paradigm.  Preferences K's, K affs, Clash debates, other things people care about -- I prefer debates about affs germane to the topic but am interested in listening to challenges to what should be included within the scope of topical discussions. That being said, if your aff is about you as a human and your life experiences, it is unlikely I will find it persuasive/debatable. I think the aff and the neg should both be able to engage in the debate with some degree of preparation and that there must be a role for the judge and the negative team. Critical debates offer what I consider to be an essential part of our cirriculum and should not be excluded reflexively, but should not occur in a way that undermines nuanced discussion and the maintenance of debate. It's your job to convince me that what you do is good, relevant, and debatable -- no matter what type of argument you read. I think K's need an alternative *always* and arguments of the "death is good" nature are usually stale. I'll evaluate whatever argument you read as objectively as I can, but I'm a strong believer in the material implications of the scholarship you endorse. An inability to explain what those implications are or why they are good will make it a lot harder to win my ballot. Theory things -- I'm pretty convinced that conditionality is terrible for debate, but I'm still waiting to be convinced that it's a reason to reject the negative. Almost every other theory argument is up for negotiation. I think that most process CPs are usually reasons to reject the argument or vote for the permutation, but can be convinced otherwise. I feel fishy about CPs that result in the entirety of the aff. CX matters and you're accountable for what you say, impact turns are fun and I wish people thought more about them, topicality debates are underrated, and I will not evaluate things that did not happen in the debate or arguments that require me to pass judgement on the character of individuals in or outside of the debate. If you have any other questions, concerns, etc, feel free to ask. Be nice, say thank you to your coaches/partners/opponents. Ask questions. If you think I'm wrong, don't be afraid to ask me about it, and remember to have fun. Best of luck.