brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

Hey, I’m Naade and I competed in policy throughout my four years in highschool, along with being involved in various other speech and debate events. PLEASE make sure to include me in the email chain using jamalinaade@gmail.com (Which you can also utilize to email me questions post-round). I’m totally cool with spreading, just ensure that every tagline is loud and clear, and that you are not eating your words as you go. So, if I have a decent understanding of what you’re saying, you’re good, if not I’ll say clear once and after that it will reflect on your speaker points. When it comes to analytics, be extremely clear and tangible, as I need to be able to flow the arguments to end up making an accurate decision in the debate. I’ve researched this years’ topic thoroughly, and am well-versed it. Off the bat, I heavily value impact calculus and stock issues, and am almost always a tech over truth judge. Realism is important to me, but argue a K well and I’ll buy it.

Topicality: Topicality is not my favorite, but if the violation is not a stretch, and your voters is solid enough it is still something I would vote for.

CP: CP’s are extremely logical arguments to me, and for that reason I value them highly. If the Negative can adequately explain why they can do the plan, and the plan’s net benefit is inclusive of everything the Aff does, plus their advantage, then I am for sure going to vote for them. Make sure to not drop arguments and you can win on CP. Though, if the perm from the Aff is strong enough to overturn that CP, then you lose. As Aff, try to keep the perms limited, I’d rather have one or two fleshed out permutations than a bunch thrown at me.

DA: Again, due to their logic, DA’s are heavily valued by me. But, if the Aff can disprove the link of a DA, you automatically lose it, and if they link-turn it, even worse. This is a part of the debate where I would love to see impact-calc and clash between the Aff and Neg.

K: This is all circumstantial. Depending on the K, and it’s link to the Aff, it can for sure be solid. But make sure the link is not too broad, otherwise you’re simply arguing your opinion without it actually pertaining to the Aff. I was a K debater on and off, and have debated in favor and against afropress, set col, cold war, cap, governmentality, necropolitics, along with feminism to name a few. So, I’m definitely well-versed in this aspect I just want to see a well-linked K. On the alt, realism is not AS important to me. For the Aff, the best thing I’d say is to always perm and attack the link, and if you can link-turn then amazing.

FW: Framing the round and making it extremely clear what is important and what is not and saying EXACTLY why you deserve my vote is something I want to hear. I know you’ve read the word realism a lot in this ballot, but if you can convince me whatever way that you debate is good for education and debate space as a whole, then you can for sure get my ballot.

Conditionality: I side with the Aff here, do not run seven half-baked off cases and drop them mid-debate, I would rather have an in-depth debate on a few offs and you have a good back and forth debate filled with clash.

Brandeis 24’

UT 28’