Allen-Niesen,+Kelsey

I am currently a senior at Brentwood School in Los Angeles. I debated for three years until the end of my junior year. I’ll be heading to Northwestern University in the fall!

Quick Version: If you really want my ballot, run smart stock arguments below top speed and crystallize well in your last speech. I’ll be happy, and you'll probably win.

The Longer Version:

Speed: It’s been about a year since I last flowed a round, so if you go your top speed, I probably won't catch it. If you have to go fast, make it 65-70%. I recognize that you might be clear but still too fast for me, so I'll call clear twice in the round before I give up. Slow down on tags and author names. People who go slow and still manage to dominate the round will be rewarded with high speaks, for they will have demonstrated impressive efficiency.

Types of Arguments I am okay with you running most arguments that you choose, it is, after all your activity. That said, I do have a few preferences:

Stock arguments These are my favorite (probably because this is mostly what I ran in high school), and if run well, I will look upon you favorably.

Policy-style arguments I prefer the plan/cp/da debate to probably every other specialized argument in LD, but if we get super into the nitty-gritty of how the plan affects the DA affects the competition of the CP, you might lose me. Just be careful.

Philo/Skep/K's/Other stuff The most important thing here is that I will not vote on K’s. If you are a K debater, do not pref me. I repeat, I WILL NOT VOTE ON Ks. With the exception of the LD philosophy canon, I'm not well versed in most of these arguments, so make sure you are doing a lot of explanation and hand-holding. If I don’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.

Theory I’m not a fan of theory. I was pretty terrible at theory as a debater, so theory shouldn’t be your go-to strategy. By all means run theory if there is legitimate abuse in the round, but don’t run frivolous theory just for strategy. I can muddle my way though, but I certainly won’t be happy about it (which will be reflected in your speaks). On a technical level, I default RVI and reasonability.

Extensions I generally require a claim warrant impact threshold to grant an extension, with the exception of the 1AR. For 1ARs, I just need the author/argument and a brief re-explanation so I know that I am looking at the right thing. I won't fill it in for you afterwards. NRs have no excuse for not developing extensions thoroughly enough.

Crystallization If you tell a great story at the end of your last speech, you will get higher speaks than you otherwise would, and certainly have a better chance of winning the round. If I am tired, lost and confused, the person who gives me the easiest and simplest way out of the round will probably win.

Other: -If I don’t understand it, you don’t get credit for it, and no one is happy. -I will drop you if you are -sexist -racist -If you’re rude and mean in round, expect to see your speaker points dip. Be competitive, be aggressive, be passionate, but don’t cross the line. Debate isn’t just about winning, it’s also about having fun.

AND I’ll bump your speaker points by .5 if you wear some sort of Northwestern apparel in round :)