Just an edgy kid who likes to run Heg DAs and Nietzsche Ks in LD.
Judge Paradigms for VDebates:
I'm an LDer so impact framing is a big deal for me, make sure you make it clear how I'mma weigh the (!) flow as I default to weighing aff v neg impacts from a util calculus but that can change as long as you justify why your (!)s take precedence, assuming no metadebate comes up. Totally cool with Role of the Ballot args PROVIDED that they're not super self-serving and exclusionary (i.e: "RotB is to deconstruct Anti-Blackness *proceeds to read 5 mins of AB*). I will flow them obviously but I'll also hold you to an incredibly high standard on stuff like that.
On the topic of metadebate, don't just say "oh their fw args are a new link to what we k so the k precedes fw" like I'll accept it but I'm gonna hold you to a really high standard on it as I spent most of my time in CX as a mostly fw/theory debater. However, I'm also gonna hold you to a really high standard on fw as well because of that. You can do the whole "fw is a new link to the K" ala Foucault but I also think you should engage fw directly as well.
T's a voter, but I'm gonna hold you to a really high standard on it, same as fw.
I'm not gonna vote on a Language K so don't even try it. Other than that I'll literally vote on whatever provided you tell me why I vote on it. Like literally anything, I once voted up genocide good I'll take all that you give me.
And lastly, to win an arg you have to win EVERY part of it. that means UQ, L, IL, and ! for DAs, NetBen, (S), and Mutual Exc. for CPs, L, IL, !, Alt (S), and Mut.Exc for Ks, and Inh, Harms, T, and (S) for the aff.