Boswell,+Ellie

[Same as Elianna Boswell - admin]

I debated 3 years of LD and 2 years of policy on the national circuit from 2007-2012 and attended 3 years of camp at VBI. I judged for my high school (Albuquerque Academy) on the national circuit in when I was in college, but Harvard will be my first tournament this year. My degree was in Middle Eastern and African History with a concentration in colonial and post colonial studies and I took classes in gender and sexuality studies as well as critical race theory—if that means anything to you.

Here are some things I think you should know. Sorry its not more organized. If you have any questions after reading this you can contact me before the round at efboswell@gmail.com:

--I can take fast-paced, technical debate, but please, I beg you, for your own good make sure you are clear. If you mumble or swallow your words I will yell clear, but I really don't want to have to. I would much prefer to watch a clear, slow debate than one in which the discussion is muddled just so you can get a few more arguments out there. In the same vein, if you just don't want to spread or it's not your thing, I won't hold that against you. I also really hate to watch debaters being spread out. Please be kind to your opponent, not everyone has the same access to resources, coaching, camp, etc... Finally on this topic: even if you are both excellent at spreading please take your time in sign-posting, overviews, voting issues, summaries, etc...this is how you can ensure that I am following you.

--I enjoy critical debates, but I won't grant critical arguments any more weight in the round than any other. That being said, make sure that you have a very firm grasp on your authors and can articulate their ideas clearly. (Remember I studied a lot of this in college and unlike in high school I now actually know what these authors are saying--so be careful not to run them poorly or fudge what your authors say.) That being said, I really appreciate creativity and if you want to try going out on a limb with a particular author, idea, theory etc...I will probably enthusiastically follow you there so long as you lay out your thinking clearly. I would much rather watch a creative debate with arguments I've never heard before that challenge me and offer something different (even if these arguments have potential holes or problems) than a stock debate with rock solid logic.

--Speaking of stock debates, while I was once familiar with many of the arguments that debaters ran (topic specific and otherwise) I am definitely less so at this point. Even during my years as a debater, I watched the nature of LD change rapidly and I assume that it has continued to do so. Although I have some sense of how it has evolved since, I am by no means as well versed in current trends as I once was. As such, please don't assume that you don't need to explain an argument or position fully just because it is run frequently on the circuit. You should always be giving complete link stories regardless, but especially in my case if you don't want to risk losing me. (Hint: overviews and underviews would be particularly useful for this purpose.)

--If you run critical positions make sure that you tell me how your arguments are functioning in the round (i.e. pre-fiat, post-fiat). If you run a K make sure you spend as much time of the link story as you do on the alt and make sure that you explain how you are accessing your alt and how it is functioning (in round, out of round, in society at large). I am am not at all opposed to arguments that function in round, in the debate world, or about the use of my ballot as a tool--in fact I'd be really happy to hear a good one. There are a lot of interventions that I would love to see made in the world of debate and am particularly compelled by genuine explanations of how that can happen in a round.

--I will vote on any argument presented in the round as long as you give me a way to evaluate it. However, (and this is perhaps the most important things I will say here) **p** **lease provide clear analysis on the framework level, including why I should prefer your framework. ** If you do not, I will be forced to intervene, which I don't want to do, and you don't want me to do, and my ballot may not seem fair because it probably won't be at that point; it will just be me picking whichever arguments I happen to like more on that particular day.

--Try to run theory only if you perceive there to be clear abuse in the round and not as a tactic. I will vote on theory if you win on it regardless, I would just prefer not to watch a theory debate.

--In your 2NR and 2AR be sure to give me voting reasons. This is the best way to ensure a win. Essentially, I want you to write my ballot for me. The mark of a good debate is that I have to do very little work in making my decision.

--Lastly, careful not to make offensive statements. I don't expect this to be a problem, but I will not tolerate clear racism, homophobia, or sexism in the round (obviously). I wish I didn't even have to say this, but I think these interventions are unfortunately necessary in the debate world--as they are in the real world.

As a debater I used to get really incredibly nervous before rounds. If you're one of those please remember that how you do in this round is not a reflection of who you are, how smart you are, or how far you're going to get in life. Trust me. I deeply believe in debate as a form of education, rather than as a sport. Let's please keep that spirit alive in the round!