Melcher,+Louisa

The Basics: I’ll listen to anything except blatantly offensive arguments. Theory is fine. If you’re reading a complicated framework or K, don’t assume I have background in the lit. Speed is alright but I judge very infrequently and was a horrible flow-er to begin with, so faster/less clear debaters may want to slow down in front of me.

Background: I debated for Immaculate Heart, went to TOC, and was invited to a few round robins. I now go to Columbia and coach independents.

Extensions: I have a pretty low threshold for extensions. For example, if the aff is conceded, I don’t care if you specifically extend each card – just make sure to tell me if I’m supposed to be voting off the aff.

Theory/Topicality: I won’t intervene against theory or T. Unoriginal, frivolous shells (like plans good/bad) will probably harm your speaks. I default to competing interps, drop the argument, and no RVIs. All of those can be changed through in-round args. If you go for reasonability, explain how you want me to decide what’s reasonable.

Kritiks: I don’t have too much to say about Ks except that I’m fine with them (including performative or non-topical ones). I default to theory/T comes first, but that can easily change through in-round args. I’m not biased against condo alts or K tricks (floating PIK, alt solves case, etc.).

DA/CP/Case: All good. Condo is fine (but so is Condo Bad theory).

Ethical Frameworks: Framework debate is fine. Slow down for tags. I default to only evaluating offense under the winning framework, but I’m open to epistemic modesty args.

Speaks: I award speaks based on argument clarity and strategic choices.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask in person or email me at louisamelcher@gmail.com.