Let's keep it simple :).

I'm a Senior debater for the Westfield Debate Team.

I've been doing Public Forum for 6 years and am very familiar with the rules of PF.

I'll keep time, feel free to do so yourself. Don't read too fast and make sure to enunciate properly.

Weighing in summary and final focus will be imperative if you want me to give you my ballot.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round starts.

Have fun and learn from your experiences!

Overall Paradigm:

Tabula Rasa judge:

• If the presented Plan is in a Stock Issues format, then I will vote as a stock-issues judge once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Comparative Advantage Plan is run, then I will shift to a policymaker framework and weigh Advantages against DAs (see the note on DAs below), once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Kritikal Aff is run, then all bets are off. Run framework and tell me why I should be voting for you.

Kritiks are a priori to Topicality, which in turn is a priori to the Plan.

Speed:

I enjoy spreading, but I dislike fast mumbling. If you’re not a proficient spreader, slow down. Reducing speed for tags, cites, and underviews helps your case immensely.

Theory:

Theory won’t win a debate on its own. Claiming in-round abuse or that your argument is better for education requires justification and strong links.

Kritiks:

I love Kritiks, but they must be strongly linked to the Plan. Otherwise, Kritiks are non-unique DAs.

Tell me the story of the Kritik. I want to hear persuasion and thought behind these arguments. A well-done K will make my weekend.

DAs:

It can be tough to weigh DAs against a Stock Issues case. If a Stock Issues case is given by AFF, I would appreciate NEG providing only DAs that diminish/turn the stock issues of the Plan.

Please, no politics DAs unless you can prove that the loss of political capital extends past enactment of the plan. I am a strong believer in Fiat.

Things that make my heart go pitter-pat:

• Confident, assured underviews
• Focusing on the claims above the evidence
• Teams that stay on the offense and show clear strategy
• TOPICALITY (as long as it is a well-structured T debate that is strongly linked to the Plan)

Things that make me cringe in my seat:

• Evidence battles
• Any kind of murky ethics (mis-claiming dropped contentions, falsely stating rules, overusing flash time for prep, etc.)
• Having to vote on a weakly supported, but crucial, argument that wasn't answered.

Having only judged three tournaments—all some years ago—I'm still new to public forum debate and will be looking for debaters to convey their arguments in clear (and not overly fast) terms.

3 years CX at Moore High School, 1 year LD

NYU '24, NYU Parli

email chain: eveseabourn@gmail.com

be respectful of everyone in the round, bigotry is not tolerated -_-

Keep your own prep just in case!

For LD:

I am familiar with traditional and progressive styles of LD. The first thing I look at when writing a ballot is the framework of the debate. That lets me decide what impacts and arguments I should prioritize. I am open to any type of argument as long as you can defend it! Make sure to clearly sign post your arguments. Arguments should have a warrant attached, otherwise they can be difficult to evaluate. For specific issues like condo/topicality, I am open to anything, with the obvious exception that the arguments are well constructed and have a clear impact story. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

TLDR: Read whatever, just be organized and give clear voters / comparative analysis.