Hubbard,+Hannah

I'm a first-year student at Wellesley College who did 3 years of LD debate in high school, mostly locally in NC and at some national circuit tournaments, including this one a couple of times and NFL national's last year. I like to think, despite all evidence to the contrary, that LD still has some redeemable value and is not just a way to boost the egos of otherwise unlikeable and pretentious teenagers, please allow me to carry on believing this.

I will drop you if you spread. I will penalize you for making shitty arguments. Please understand and logically connect your evidence to explain why the resolution should be affirmed or negated. I will not value empirics over theory/philosophy based arguments, I will value whatever evidence is logically consistent, well analyzed, and well connected to your central arguments. On that note, please make clear and compelling arguments that you carry throughout the round (versus throwaway "and if you didn't buy [my main argument, which was clearly crap since I'm half expecting you not to "buy" it]...."). I don't care who wins the value debate, please don't waste time arguing the difference between morality and justice unless you're going somewhere with it, just be able to convince me that your side is "better" based on whatever weighing mechanism has been determined in the round. I'm not inherently opposed to different formats or ways of presenting an affirmation/negation, but it has to be absolutely topical and if you are bullshitting me or trying to purposefully trip up an opponent who doesn't know what the hell your kritik even means, I will drop you for it (so maybe save your case about reptilian overlords taking over the planet because we made bison the national animal or about how we have to negate because there's a .0000000000001% chance of nuclear war being caused by giving people free flu shots for another judge).

Whoever proves themselves to be the most compelling, logically consistent, on-point, and competent speaker will win the round.