Rashed,+Diganta


 * **PRE-BYRAM UPDATE**: I have not been involved in debate for almost a full year, so don't expect me to be receptive to your top speed as well as your convoluted 1ACs immediately. Start a bit slow, allow me to get adjusted, and then we're all good. Argument-wise no restrictions, just go a bit slower in the start. **

I debated for 4 years at Bronx Science. Questions? Facebook message me, or email me at drashed2009@gmail.com

**Bronx Update:**
After judging enough rounds with a variance of arguments I found out that I really don't care as long as you are funny/engaging, not offensive, and just avoid the args I don't want to vote for at all (listed @ bottom of paradigm. That's the way to get speaks. Also, you get speaks through making fun of the people in the bottom of the paradigm, the list for which will extend. Point is, do whatever you want, __**GET ME FOOD, AND MAKE FUN OF THE SELECT PEOPLE FOR HIGHER SPEAKS.**__

**Pre-round version:**
Make the round your own, unless you’re racist, sexist, homophobic, or choose to actively exhibit problematic behavior. Read whatever you want, just remember that I haven’t been involved with debate for nearly half a year, so you can bet I likely won’t follow your top speed filled with a massive dump of spike-filled args. Best bet? **GO 75% SPEED WITH SLOW TAGS, AND USE A FEW SECONDS OF REBUTTAL TIME TO ROADMAP.** Don’t know what I absolutely **WONT** listen to? Check the bottom of the paradigm. Ask me for clarifications if you need to know about any specific type of argument you want to read.

**Long Version:**
Debate, despite its disadvantages, is still a forum for competitive education. You can still have the aspect of competition, but don’t sacrifice education for it. I have no particular preferences for what kind of argument you choose to run. I will listen to most arguments so long as the premise of your debate is not to actively exclude the other debater. I do have arguments that I will paradigmatically not listen to, check the list at the bottom of the paradigm to find out which. Be courteous. Don’t be mean. Now, I guess specifics are in order.

**Framework:**
I like listening to well-written frameworks. If you are able to explain to me the logical justification behind why I should believe that actions derived from some ethical principle is good, chances are you will have the framework debate down. Have solid justifications in the framework and MAKE SURE THEY ARE WARRANTED.

**T/Theory**
I default competing interps, drop the argument on theory, and drop debater on T. If you are able to convince me otherwise, it better be well warranted. Reasonability is also fine as long as there is an explicit metric and threshold for what exactly is reasonable within the context of the arguments in play during the round. Don’t read friv theory, chances are I won’t enjoy it, you’ll get low speaks and I will more likely be inclined to vote against you for it.

**Ks**
I was a performance/K debater during my senior year. I believe the judge serves the role of an educator meaning Ks do belong in debate, don’t just prima facie try to exclude them. There is a vast ocean of literature so do not expect me to be well read on everything, so explanations of the literature are recommended.

**Misc.:**

 * Roadmap so I know where on the flow you are
 * First time judging in a while, so go slow

Arguments I will ABSOLUTELY not vote for

 * Disclosure theory
 * Skep vs. Ks
 * Racism doesn’t exist bc science
 * List will get longer in the future

If you crack jokes about the following people without being blatantly offensive you will get higher speaks:
1) __**Neal Kapoor**__ 2) Michael Corder 3) Jacob Ronkin 4) __**Karan Choudhary**__ 5) Brandon Kramer 6) __**David Wang**__ 7) Wesley Hu 8) List will get longer in the future