TLDR;
 I like K’s; i believe they have an important place in debate when done right. Don’t be mean. You do you honestly. Read anything and warrant it well, I’ll probably vote for it.
 About Me
 pronouns: she/her
 I am a sophomore at Stanford.
 put me on the email chain: torihoge@stanford.edu
 events i have competed in from most frequently to least: policy, ld, parli, pofo, congress, impromptu (at heart, i am a policy kid)
 I coach nationally all levels of policy, LD, and public forum. Do with that what you will.
 PET PEEVES:
 1. is everybody ready. Say is anyone not ready and begin 2. my timer starts now. Just hit start 3. (for online debate) please turn your camera on when you are speaking 4. don't decide your roadmap while you are talking. at least sound certain of what order you are going in
 IMPORTANT READ:
 

 

 If there is anything I can do to accommodate your needs, please do not hesitate to let me know.
 Do not read a K just because you saw I like k’s. Do not use other’s oppression for a ballot. This is not okay. You must be well versed in the literature and have a genuine understanding and care for the argument you read, or don’t bother. I don’t like performative activism or reading things just for a ballot. I would rather do a lot of things than watch a bad k debate. If k’s are your thing and you are knowledgeable, then go for it, it’s my favorite kind of debate.
 Also include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of racial/settler/ableist/anti-queer/gender-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide.
 My philosophy: if you can explain a very complex topic in simple enough words to explain to a grandparent, then you are a very good debater
 If you do anything of the -ists or -ics (think racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.) you will receive an L-25
 email me before or after if you wanna talk about literally anything or if you have any questions about my paradigm or about the round
 

 

 I’m a great judge for you if:
 

 you like k debate or read mostly critical arguments
 you like technical, high speed debate
 you have fun, quirky arguments that demonstrate a lot of personality
 you are amazing at T
 you have a well-researched stock case
 

 K’s 
 I was a k debater in high school. This is not an invitation to read any k ever. I do not know or understand the premise of every single k that exists. For reference k’s I have debated are neolib/cap, fem ir, queer ir, security, imperialism, setcol, and speaking for others. At least, that is what I can remember off the top of my head. Even if you are reading a k that I have read, explain it and warrant it as if I have no idea what is going on. K’s need some alt or a very good explanation of why defense is enough and why you don’t need one. K’s need a specific link otherwise they don’t work. What you’re talking about may be important, but if it does not link, then it is not part of the conversation.
 Nontopical/K-affs
 I don’t really care if they are in the direction of the topic or not. I think that it is stupid that some judges are like at least run a K in the direction of the affirmative, like no that’s quite literally not the point of k-affs. Also, I read my fair share of k-affs in high school primarily fem killjoy and open borders. I am ok with k-affs, but again do not just read them for a ballot, and do them right.
 Topicality (not theory)
 I like (and can even love) topicality debates when they are done right. However, if T is not your forte, DO NOT RUN IT IN FRONT OF ME. I despise bad T debates.
 Theory (distinct from topicality)
 Sometimes can be justified, but it has never been a voting issue for me. Run it if you want, but it better be warranted.
 CPs
 I think they’re great for stock debate. I think they help generate offense. However, I need a very clear explanation of why the perm cannot work, or else I am prompted to vote on the perm. I default to the perm if the explanation does not make sense, if I do not follow, or if it is contradictory. Perm work here is very important for me. Also this should be obvious but I’m putting it in because I see it wayyyyy too many times. YOUR DA SHOULD NOT LINK TO THE CP. that’s the point of a cp.
 DAs
 Also good for stock debate. Warrant well. Connect to a terminal impact. I think that they need some sort of CP or K with them.
 CHSSA/Lay debate
 

 

 I really don’t care what the “rules” are or whatever the handbook says. If your only strategy is to complain that they are cheating or aren’t following the rules, then get better at debate: learn how to debate substance.
 Don’t try any mind tricks. I am flowing. I know when your opponent dropped something or when they did not. Do not claim they dropped something when they did not.
 

 

 I was very heavily influenced by Andrea Chow. Andrea is the goat and was also my partner in high school. Check out her paradigm for more context as I generally agree with all of her philosophies.