Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

I graduated from Montville Township High School in 2018 and from Wesleyan University in 2022. I did PF for 4 years and I now work for the New York City Urban Debate League.

I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy. I probably won't flow from a speech doc. I'm fine with game-like things like kicking case and going for turns. I'm okay with some level of tech/progressive argumentation, but I don't want that to be a game-like thing--I probably won't vote for a shell/K that I think is read solely because the other team doesn't know how to handle it.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.

First summary does not need to cover defense unless second rebuttal frontlined. First summary should include turns if you want them as offense, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense (unless they were frontlined in second rebuttal).

I really, really appreciate collapsing in both summaries. And, of course, weighing.

I debated PF in High School, coached in College and now work and run tournaments for the NYCUDL. I judge on the flow most heavily on the last four speeches. Please weigh and give analysis beyond dropping weighing mechanism terms. The more effective your analysis and explanation of the round the more likely I will vote for you. I won't drop your arguments if you don't bring them up in every speech, but I will weigh and value them less because that indicates to me that it is not an essential argument to your case. Be kind to your opponents I will dock your speaks for being rude to anyone in the round.

april 2024 npdl:

hi! my name is melanie (she/her), and i'm a former high school PF debater, and i currently compete in APDA for nyu.

i think the tldr is basically make it as clear as possible for me in how i'm supposed to evaluate the round—i'm a very large fan of off time roadmaps and signposting, please weigh your arguments, have the arguments you want to vote on in rebuttals, etc. i don't really like or have a ton of experience debating or judging theory, kritiks, etc. and i can't promise that i will understand how to properly judge it; if you do run it, may it not be frivolous, and may the mechanics be explicitly explained.

i can flow like 260wpm and up but i would prefer not to. creative arguments are fun; silly arguments are fun. i try to be tabula rasa and am willing to buy an untrue argument if it is uncontested.