i would unironaically suck your juicy cock off. i dotn care what you look like irl. even if you looked like Ed from 90 day fiance i would do it. i just know that youre fuckign ales fuckign underscore. and thats hwy i want to suck you off. on my knees taking it. waiting for you to explode all over my face.
Submitted by:AdmiralBulldog
ales_
i would unironaically suck your juicy cock off. i dotn care what you look like irl. even if you looked like Ed from 90 day fiance i would do it. i just know that youre fuckign ales fuckign underscore. and thats hwy i want to suck you off. on my knees taking it. waiting for you to explode all over my face.
For judges reading this that think I’m wrong, I’d love to know your thoughts on all of the following: do you default to text or spirit of the interp? What’s your default threshold for reasonability? Have you debated, and won a 1ar in a circuit LD or Policy round with a qualified circuit judge? Does competing interps require an explicit counterinterp? Is terminal defense sufficient under competing interpretations? Should counterinterps and interps be read in constructives, or rebuttals (and can I expect debaters to understand my preferences going into the round)? Why are RVIs considered illegitimate in policy? What’s the difference between T and theory? Have you only ever witnessed fewer than five theory debates? Is this the first theory debate you’re adjudicating? What is metatheory? Does metatheory come before theory (why or why not)? What should you do if theory is read without voters? What is a theory voter? If you could not answer any of these questions, or answered no, I BEG YOU: be honest with yourself. It is admirable to admit your own limitations, and to simply put in your paradigm – “I will not vote on theory because I do not know how to evaluate it.” .
Submitted by:anonymous
For judges reading this that think I’m wrong, I’d love to know your thoughts on all of the following: do you default to text or spirit of the interp? What’s your default threshold for reasonability? Have you debated, and won a 1ar in a circuit LD or Policy round with a qualified circuit judge? Does competing interps require an explicit counterinterp? Is terminal defense sufficient under competing interpretations? Should counterinterps and interps be read in constructives, or rebuttals (and can I expect debaters to understand my preferences going into the round)? Why are RVIs considered illegitimate in policy? What’s the difference between T and theory? Have you only ever witnessed fewer than five theory debates? Is this the first theory debate you’re adjudicating? What is metatheory? Does metatheory come before theory (why or why not)? What should you do if theory is read without voters? What is a theory voter? If you could not answer any of these questions, or answered no, I BEG YOU: be honest with yourself. It is admirable to admit your own limitations, and to simply put in your paradigm – “I will not vote on theory because I do not know how to evaluate it.” .