Hubbul,+Rizvi

Yes, I'd like to be in an email chain, my email address is hubbul68@gmail.com

I debated LD for 3 years locally and nationally. I'm conflicted from Cypress Falls.

I think debate rounds should be about what debaters want to talk about so I will vote on any argument if it is warranted and articulated well. Although no one can be completely //tabula rasa// since judges are humans too, I will try to be as objective as possible. If you read any argument that is critical like performances, Ks etc, explain to me well in terms how it applies to the round or to the topic and please make sure that it's warranted like an argument should be.

Few other things: > I start from 28.5 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity and the type of arguments you make. S/O to Fred Ditzian.
 * I never flowed well in rounds so it'd be great and will help your speaks too if you start slower and then pick up the pace. Please slow down on all your tags, card names, analytics, especially short framework arguments and analytics.
 * I never recognized myself as a "theory debater" so if you plan on reading theory, please make sure that there is an actual abuse in the round and that the argument is well developed.
 * Similarly for Ks, I think post-fiat topical Ks are much more convincing but I ran pre-fiat Ks myself and I will on them if won in the round.
 * Dense philosophy is not my forte because they are really just convoluted arguments and reading them at 300 wpm only makes it worst. If you read them, go for it, it's your round but please explain the impacts to me.
 * Double breathing is no bueno for me. I can bear you for maybe for couple speeches but after that I will tank your speaks. If I am looking at you and not down, you probably need to slow down.