McNamara,Addie

I am a Junior Statistics and Political Science double-major at Yale. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for three years at Palo Alto High School in California. I mostly competed on the local circuit, and it has been a while since I've been involved in the debate community so I'm not caught up on any jargon or conventions of LD, so explanations and clarity are critical. I am fine with arguments with advanced formats (like theory, plans, kritics, etc.) but if you're going to use them to exclude or preclude other layers of the flow, you need to be telling me why they function that way.

A couple of quick notes: - The round is your opportunity to talk about what you're interested in / find compelling, so I don't have any strong preferences on the content in round. - Warrants and clean extensions are a must. - I haven't listened to speed reading/talking in a while so if you intend to spread, start off slow, and listen if I say "clear" or "slow" or I will dock speaker points. - I will default to evaluating the round on a comparative world paradigm but only if arguments about that aren't made in round. - Tell my why and where I'm voting. Generally the debater with the clearest and most compelling ballot story will win the round.

One final thing, I'm copying this from my friend Annie Kors' page because it applies to me as well: "If you say something blatantly offensive, or that I think would/could make the debate round an unsafe or incredibly uncomfortable space, I will have no qualms about dropping you (not just your speaks) on that basis alone. I sincerely doubt that this will ever be a problem, but I want to give fair warning. If you think this will apply to you, just strike me please."