providence,+sara

I debated LD for 4 years at Brooklyn Tech on the local, regional, and national circuits. I am currently a freshman at Harvard.

I generally understand and am fine with the use of theory, but I won't vote on theory if you give me a barely developed shell. I much prefer topical debate, and need a compelling reason to vote on the idea that something isn't fair or something is methodologically wrong with someone's style, or another application of theory that doesn't fit into one of these categories. So basically, if you're running theory commit to it and run it well.

If a card is becoming a big issue in a round I WILL read it at the end. Please be aware of this-- although impacts of cards are malleable, the words within the card aren't and if your card is not representative of your argument then I will view the argument as unwarranted and, at best, not vote on that argument. At worst, if your opponent has put up a good enough fight, I will default a win on that particular argument to your opponent. This is just based on the fact that honest debate is about good argumentation, not good card reading and editing. I also prefer more intricate argumentation that really questions and stresses the way in which cards interact with the topic and with your case, as opposed to just a card that kind of agrees with the affirmation or negation of the resolution.

I am fine with speed but stress clarity. I will probably call clear if I can't understand what you're saying but eventually this will probably cost you speaker points. Also, trying to trick your opponent by mixing around the order of your case only works if I, too, am not tricked/confused. So please be clear or else I won't be able to flow certain things.

Lastly, this should go without saying but I don't like to have to make many decisions in a round. Tell me what issues I need to look at at the end. If the round went well, you should both be pointing me in the same direction, and then all I have to do is evaluate who's doing a better job with those points.


 * I have noticed while judging that debaters are not effectively weighing some of the most important issues of the round. I need to see a clear comparative standards debate, not just extensions of your justifications. I also need to see EXTENSIONS of evidence and claims before you WEIGH those things. You can't just tell me you're quantifying something without showing me what you're quantifying or where you're doing it.