for the chain- zaarah.azad@gmail.com
 reagan '21, duke '25
 pronouns: she/her
 qualified to the TOC twice (8 bids total)
 for prefs: 
 if you're a hardcore policy team, i would not pref me high. i did k debate of 3 of the 4 years i debated so that should probably tell you how well versed i am with policy things. if you do end up having me in the back and only read these arguments, don't worry. you just have to simplify and connect the dots for me more than you would for other judges. for k teams i am probably in the range of a 1-3 and policy teams from a 4-6.
 background: 
 my sophomore year i read settler colonialism and linguistic criticisms like anzuldua. my junior year i read a baudrillard aff and a bunch of k's on the negative like semiocap, wilderson, settler colonialism, and baudrillard. my senior year i only read warren on the aff and neg.
 notes:
 - clarity > speed
 -tech > truth in most instances
 - don't be problematic. i am unafraid to vote on microaggressions. (racism, sexism, death good)
 - clipping is bad but needs proof (L and 0 speaks for the team who does it)
 - try entertaining me! judging can get boring sometimes so enjoyable rounds are always good
 - zoom debate can be miserable if you aren't careful. please have a good mic, try and have your camera on, and don't speak over others during cx because nothing can be heard
 kritiks:
 - these debates can either be really good or really bad - please don't make them bad
 - im familiar with antiblackness, set col, cap, and baudrillard. even if i may know what you are reading, you still need to do nuanced analysis on the thesis of your k.
 - i never understood long overviews cause you re-explain all of what you said on the line-by-line. if you do have a long overview, try and make it the least redundant as possible.
 - i have a deep deep deep hatred for links of omission. please make them specific.
 - framework determines the rest of the debate. you need a model of debate that is preferable and probably should have offense on why the other side's model is bad for debate.
 - if you read a kritik against a K aff, i will reward specific engagement by holding affirmative teams to a higher standard for permutation explanation.
 - you can kick the alt
 - just cause you won your theory of power doesn't mean you won the round :P
 t-usfg: 
 - i read k affs a lot but that doesn't mean i wont vote for t usfg. it just means i know a lot about how it should be ran
 - clash as an impact>>>>
 - fairness and limits > education and ground
 - often negative teams forget to do impact comparison when going for t-usfg - this is the easiest way to win my ballot
 - subjectivity debates matter and can implicate a lot of the flow
 - i think switch side is very persuasive and solves a lot of offense
 topicality:
 - i lean towards competing interpertations but will still vote on reasonability
 - case lists are nice
 - i appreaciate intent to define arguments
 - impact comparison is pretty important
 - good counter interp ev is really cool.
 - like t-usfg i am more persuaded by limits fairness and clash than education and ground
 counterplans:
 - smart, creative counterplans are appreciated if executed well
 - i like counterplans that are textually and functionally competitive, but your counterplan by no means has to be. i mostly just think you should have a solvency advocate.
 - i lean neg for most counterplan theory except for consult, condo, solvency advocate. theory debates get wack so do a lot of work here to make it make sense
 - i need instruction for judge kick.
 disadvantages:
 - impact comparison is especially important for these debates
 - evidence comparison is also pretty important
 - turns case arguments when executed correctly are strategic and beneficial for negative teams
 - 1ar gets new arguments to new uniqueness, links, or impacts in the blocks
 theory:
 - apart from things like condo and judge kicks i am not nuanced in theory arguments. slow down and overexplain things if you plan on doing this in front of my
 case debate: 
 - you should probably do this besties
 miscellaneous:
 - i hate aspec. if you hide this in a t shell i hate you.
 -be nice. being sassy can be fun but there is a limit
 - respect your opponents. respect their pronouns. don't cut each other off. just be respectful
 - put a trigger warning on your stuff!!!!!
 - i am heavily influenced by Philip Dipiazza, Gavin Loyd, Sean Kennedy, Rafael Sanchez, and David Gutierrez. if you have any questions, their paradigms could probably answer it.
 - taylor swift references gives you +0.2 speaker points