Singer,+Lauren

Hi! I debated for Scarsdale High School for four years (2013-2017), qualifying to TOC and to my pretty traditional state tournament. This means I'm comfortable evaluating both circuit and traditional debates. I currently debate parli for Yale.

-Any argument style (Ks, tricks, traditional, etc.) is equally fine with me-do what you're most interested in and excited about. -Please weigh and give me a clear ballot story--giving a good overview at the start of the 2NR/2AR will make me much more likely to vote for you. -I'll say "slow" and "clear" as many times as necessary without dropping speaks, but keep in mind that if I can't understand what you're saying, I'm less likely to understand the round correctly and make a decision that you'll like. -Some degree of embedded clash is inevitable, but I'm still more skeptical of embedded clash than most judges. Please try to signpost your arguments onto those with which they interact when you first make them, rather than relying on new or implicit interactions. -I only judge at a few tournaments per year. ** This means that if I’m your round 1 or 2 judge, there’s a good chance I haven’t thought ** **about **** LD in months and that it would be particularly helpful for you to give clear overviews and crystallization. **Another consequence of this is that I often ask the debaters to flash/email me speech docs whenever they provide them to their opponents. I do this because I don’t want my rusty flowing skills to make me a worse judge for you.
 * OVERVIEW: **

Here are the specifics:

I'll try my best to avoid defaulting to anything. Instead, I'll operate under the framing the debaters either explicitly introduce (which I strongly prefer) or seem to assume. However, if no one seems to have any stance on these issues, I'll default to: -Theory is drop the argument -T is drop the debater -Truth testing <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In the absence of presumption arguments, I won't presume for either side. If there is no offense in the round (which I hope never happens), I'll vote for the person who I feel did a better job.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">DEFAULTS: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I have a low threshold for extensions. For example, if an entire advantage of a plan is conceded, saying "extend my biodiversity advantage" is sufficient. If an argument is contested, re-explain the warrant when you extend it.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">EXTENSIONS: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I think these are some of the most compelling arguments in debate when well-executed. I've noticed that the debaters I've given the highest speaks have been the ones who read Ks and were extremely good at it. However, I'm not well-versed in most K lit, so err on the side of over-explanation. Whenever I did read a K as a debater, it was almost always a cap K. If you're reading high theory (i.e. Deleuze), be sure to weigh between it and your opponent's arguments a little more explicitly.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">KRITIKS: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I read a fair number of these as a debater. Feel free to read as many a prioris or "must obey NSDA rules" spikes as you want, unless you're reading them against someone who's clearly much less experienced with them than you are. If I can tell that you’re using tricks because you know your opponent has never seen them before and won’t know how they function, I’ll be angry.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">TRICKS: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1. Frivolous theory for strategic purposes is fine, with the same caveat as tricks—please don’t use it to intentionally confuse people who you know haven‘t heard of theory. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">2. I won't vote on an unverifiable violation unless the violation is conceded. This means that if your violation relies on something on a wiki or a Facebook message, show a screenshot instead of just promising that it happened. Likewise, if an accusation of card clipping is made, there needs to either be a video/voice recording proving the violation or I have to have noticed it myself, which I can't promise I will have.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">THEORY: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Things that will get you good speaks: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">*asking for a 30 is not one of them!* <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1. Good strategic choices <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">2. Being nice <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">3. Giving well-organized speeches <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">4. Being funny (it's not like you'll get lower speaks if you're not funny, but you might get extra points if you are)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">SPEAKER POINTS: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Things that will get you low speaks: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1. Skep against Ks that discuss structural violence. Against high theory, skep is fine. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">2. Making anyone else in the room feel uncomfortable or unsafe-this means being racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Have fun!!!