Zhu,+Angela

I did Lincoln-Douglas debate for three years or so at Perkiomen Valley High School. I am currently a senior at NYU studying international relations and French. I have been loosely involved with the debate community since high school, but assuming I am the Michael Phelps of flowing would not be wise.

I like old-school debate. I believe that if you have logic on your side, you don't need a professor or an expert to back you up. (Statistics though, will obviously need a credible source.) That being said, I do need to see actual warrants; don't just tell me that it's logic. If you are right, you should be able to explain it.

If you are selling BS, I'm not going to buy it. This remains true even if your opponent doesn't call you out on it. I do not consider this intervention; I consider this doing my job (i.e. judging the quality of your arguments). It is your responsibility to persuade me that your arguments are reasonable. Therefore I will not vote on an unreasonable argument simply because it was dropped if it had no merit to begin with. On the other hand, this only applies to completely ridiculous and warrantless arguments; it would not be safe to assume that you can drop an argument because you think I will discredit it on my own.

I am not a fan of theory arguments or kritiks. I believe these types of arguments avoid the topic – you can discuss the rules of LD and the quality of the resolution on your own time, and you can run these arguments at your own risk. If you are clearly winning, I will still vote for you, but just know that I will initially be disinclined to do so.

If you are ridiculously abusive, I will drop you for being a terrible person. I don't mind people getting into the heat of the argument, but please maintain a reasonable level of decorum. Also, debaters on the negative should not pack up during the 2AR. Lastly, I won't drop you for bad grammar, but know that it will affect your credibility in my mind.

In short: be clear, be logical, and be persuasive.