Hossain,+Riba

Newburgh Free Academy '15 Emerson College '19 I usually judge for Lexington. debated policy for 3 years and LD for about a half of a year in high school

I’m generally better at T evaluation than theory just fyi.
 * __ T/theory __** – I’m not great at evaluating these debates. As someone who did policy I was only introduced to in depth concepts of T and theory near my senior year. Frivolous theory is gross, pls just don’t, but actual abuse does happen and in the end I’m willing to judge a theory round. Getting my ballot in a theory round comes down to explanation. I need you to tell me how arguments function and which ones come first in a theory debate because I actually just don’t know. So another requirement of me making an informed decision on theory – slooooow down, collapse, don’t overwhelm me.


 * __ Ks __**- I was a K debater in HS but that does not at all mean I know anything about your K lit. Even if I do, I value the debater showing me they understand the K and if you manage to do that it will show in your speaks.

The perm debate- I think links as DAs to the perm are pretty persuasive but I’d like some comparative analysis on why the K alt would function better on it’s own/ mutual exclusivity stuff.

Links- I think generic links that may encompass the aff but isn’t specific to the actual advocacy/rhetoric/what you’re critiquing of the aff aren’t likely to get me.

Alternative- If the alternative doesn’t function(bc args made in the round prove it doesn’t) I think I can still evaluate the K as a DA to the aff if I’m getting arguments about why the K functions like that ie comparative analysis of K v aff

Pls stop w the jargon.


 * __ Policy __**- I’m pretty good with these positions and I’m p chill with LARPing. I think extinction scenarios aren’t very compelling though so the impact of your DA being traditional policy doesn’t do much for me.


 * __ Philosophy __**- Just assume going into the round I will have no idea what you’re talking about when you get into heavy philosophy debates. I can still understand them with the correct level of explanation and actually think these debates can be very interesting so go for it if that’s what you do.


 * __ ROB/ROJ __**- it all comes down to comparison!!!! The amount of times I hear “rob was conceded” and I’m like but it wasn’t???? actually kills me. I need reasons to prefer yours and reasons not to prefer your opponent’s.


 * __ Performance __**- I think performance arguments are awesome. I’d actually say they’re my favorite thing to watch being debated. I want analysis on why you’re particular form of performance is effective (method debate pls)

I will never end to hate that it has to be said in my paradigm that I won’t tolerate anything even slightly offensive and that you shouldn’t be rude to your opponent.
 * __ Other issues __**-

Trigger warnings- I have some very in depth thoughts on trigger warnings as a practice in general life, so in debate I think trigger warnings need to be given – but I think talking about concepts vs talking about experiences in depth and detailed are very different. I think if asked you need to tell your opponent (or me because I have triggers too) to what depth your argument goes into the topic because that affects whether it will be a trigger.

Speed- I haven’t seen a debater I can’t flow yet so hopefully you’re not that person. I will say clearer and my limit is 3 times and then I basically give up. I might also say louder because debaters talk way too soft like a lot of the time.

Speaks- I need in depth explanation and good strategy choices – I don’t want to give anyone bad speaks and I like to think I’m pretty generous with speaker points. If you ask me after the round to disclose speaks, I’ll probably end up doing that but I’d just rather you not ask.

I will always happily respond to questions….if my response to you asking about an argument is that I wasn’t able to flow it, don’t get mad at me. If I don’t understand the words being said, I don’t flow it.

In the end, I will evaluate any argument you tell me to and I’d prefer to see you run the argument you are best at.