Hey, I'm Elaine (she/her). I'm a first-year at MIT; in high school I did 4 years of LD with extensive experience in World Schools (nsda 2x quarters) and a bit of experience in Extemp.
 (Note: most of this paradigm is Ely Altman's)
 In LD, I focused on trad and policy debate and do not have that much experience with K's or advanced theory. That being said, I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (except tricks, I will not vote on tricks) as long as you are clear and debate assuming I have zero topic knowledge. But if you have more stock arguments available, I do prefer those.
 Please include me on the email chain: eliu0499@gmail.com. If you go too fast or aren't clear when reading, though, I won't fill in the gaps for you. I also don't love listening to spreading, so please try not to unless you absolutely have to.
 GENERAL:
 Run what you want. I'll do my best to evaluate it. Communication comes first for me though. If I can't understand your arguments and warrants, that's on you, and I have no problem making that my RFD.
 I like it when debaters collapse effectively on arguments. Crystallizing and world comparison in the round goes a long way with me. I also like to see debaters cede the true parts of their opponent's case but give nuanced analysis on why they outweigh.
 If you make me laugh you'll get a mini speaks boost.
 Lastly, if possible, make me care about your arguments! Tell me explicitly who you help, and why that matters. Judges aren't robots. If you can give me a convincing narrative tinged with passion, it goes a long way.
 Short Prefs:
 traditional debate / flay - 1
 LARP- 2
 identity Ks - 3
 High theory Ks and phil - 4
 T/theory- 4. I don't love, but I'll vote on well-warranted/egregious violations. Also fair warning: I'm inexperienced with T. Run it if you have to, but make it easy for me to understand/vote for you.
 Tricks - strike. Just don't.
 Trad LD:
 I decide debates through layers. Framework, observations, burdens, etc are all crucial to structuring the debate. I look to what operates at the highest ground, decide who won that point, and move to the next layer. Rinse and repeat until the debate has a winner. Thus, it would benefit you to try to structure the debate in such a way that you have a win condition.
 Now, here are some things that’ll make voting for you easier for me.
 1. ENGAGE WITH FRAMEWORK. Weigh frameworks against each other. Even better if y’all haven’t agreed on a FW yet, tell me how you win under both your FW and your opponents (if you do this, I’ll boost your speaks).
 2. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. If you don’t weigh offense, I have to guess at the end of the round whose impacts are more important. You don’t want that because it makes the round very subjective on my end. Instead, go the extra mile, avoid that, and tell me why your offense is more important than your opponents.
 3. Please do extensions correctly. Do not just say "extend my second contention" or "extend Warren 13" and then move on. Extend the ev or arg, rebut any arguments they made, explain the impact of the extension, and THEN move on.
 4. I like numbered responses and overviews. They make the debate easier for me to flow/understand.
 5. Round narrative is very important. Don’t lose sight of what this debate is really about because you’re too busy focusing on an irrelevant tangent that won’t factor into my decision. Tell me overall why your world is better than your opponents. Tell me who you help, why they need help, why you’re the person that best helps them, and why that matters. That’s how to win in front of me.
 6. Voter issues. Do them. It makes evaluating the debate much easier. A bit of advice. Negative, if you correctly predict what the Aff voters will be in NR and tell me why I shouldn’t vote for it, that’s a great strategic move, and I’ll boost speaks. Affirmative, in the 2ar, interact with the Neg voters, and I’ll boost speaks. They literally just handed you on a silver platter the arguments they’re hoping to win. So attack or (better yet) turn their voters! Outweigh their voters with yours!
 Progressive LD:
 I'm in between on the tech vs. truth debate. Obviously, tech matters because full truth would justify me voting for Aff just because I personally believe that side. Full tech justifies the race to the bottom we see right now with debaters throwing out unwarranted blips and expecting to win because their opponent dropped a single sentence. I'm somewhere in the middle probably slightly leaning towards tech. No one is tabula rasa. You trust me to use my agency to make a decision about who won the round, so trust me to use my agency to decide whether tech or truth matters more in a specific round.
 Things I like: increasing accessibility in the debate space (i.e being inclusive to small schools & new debaters), warranted out link chains, probability>magnitude weighing. Good evid ethics! Also, I will always prefer logical analytics over poorly contextualized evidence. Lastly, please weigh, signpost, and extend.
 Things I dislike: Tricks, lack of clarity, when debaters read literature they don't understand and can't make comprehensible in round, shady disclosure, friv theory, arguments that are (either implicitly or explicitly) exclusionary, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. That will get you dropped. Also new in the last speech, just don't.
 CX is binding.
 SPEECH
 I did some extemp my senior year and have watched a lot of speech rounds online, I will try my best to evaluate rounds!
 If you have any questions before or after the round let me know and I will be happy to answer!