Hey !

I mainly do Lincoln Douglas at Pennsbury, but I have experiance in pf, policy, and extemp.

Preferences:

• FRAMEWORK
• please dont spread
• I dont buy arguments over abuse
• Evidence is key, make sure ur evidence is not fabricated

Couple of key things which I would expect,

• Speak clearly and slowly
• Do not rush through your points
• Be appreciative of your opposite teams and give them fair chance to debate
• Have fun!

Hi! I am Megan Stevens, a debater at Pennsbury High School. I mainly do LD, but also have experience and PF and Policy.

DISCLAIMER: I do not racism, sexism, or any sort of discrimination. Speaker points will be deducted.

Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions after the round!

Email: meganbrielle8@gmail.com

LD:

• I love a good framework debate. Still, I could still vote for a debater even if they lose on framework.

• Framing the ballot and clear voters go a long way

• Signpost and give an off-time roadmap

• Have a clear link chain: claim, warrant, impact

• Emphasis on the warrants: card extensions > baseless analytics

• If you're winning on the flow, you're probably winning!!

• I'm cool with CPs and Ks. I'm not familiar with circuit LD arguments, so over-explain.

• A little speed is fine as long as you stay coherent. If you're spreading, please start an email chain.

• Tech > truth

PF

Everything above applies for PF too!

Hi, my name is Avigail Wus and I do LD for my main event (though I've dabbled in Policy, BQ and Parli)

I value respectful debating; I know, it gets hard to keep calm during round, but when crossx becomes a shouting match or rebuttals get too pointed, it undermines the entire debate. I do not accept arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, Islamaphobic, or anything else remotely close to discrimination. Look to what event you're participating in.

For LD: Start with framework. If there's no framework, I cannot weigh the round. Your contentions must fall under your framework and be the most important under that framework. If you drop/concede framework but still weigh more under it, then I can still vote on your side. If both sides lose framework, it is very hard for me to make a decision.Besides that, I absolutely hate long, sketchy link chains leading to overblown impacts such as extinction or nuc war. I'll flow it, but as long as your opponent makes a comprehensible argument against it, I probably won't vote for it. Framework lets you value any impact you want--utilize that instead of running nuc war or extinction.

LD Progressive Debate: I understand/have debated CP's and topicality, but I understand the basics of K's. If you're going to run dense theory, please be able to break it down for me (pretend I'm a lay judge). If you run disclosure theory I will drop you.

For Policy: Run whatever you want; K's, CPs, or theory, as long as you don't run super dense theory (and if you do please explain it in laymans terms). However, I'm not a huge fan of running over 5/6 off (usually if they're just throwaway, bad arguments to kick later), and I will listen to condo if your opponent brings it up. That's not to say I won't vote for you if you win on the flow, I'm just not favorable towards it.

General preferences:

• If you drop an argument or a contention, I consider it true. However, this is not an automatic win of any sort; if your argument is small or hardly relevant in terms of the round, I'll weigh it against the other arguments in the round and decide.
• NO SPREADING! Debate is about preparing you for the real world and talking at 500 wpm is not a life skill.
• Do not miscut cards or twist evidence to say something it doesn't mean. If I find this I will automatically drop you. Powertagging and miscut cards are two different things, but tampering with evidence is not okay.