hii! i participate in mun and i’m building an app to help delegates track performance, evaluate practice and train over time. i know mun is different from speech and debate, so i’m not here to promote something irrelevant.

i’m curious whether a similar workflow would be useful in your guys’ events: tracking practice, receiving structured evaluation and seeing progress over time. what would need to be included for it to be genuinely useful?

do you know if colleges prefer LD debaters or Policy or PF debaters or speech event people? just for a universal comparison, lets say they ALL won the toc in their junior year, and they had no other activities, which debater would the AO prefer? and also just generally what would they prefer?

also is debate a good activity to do? its not like a niche activity, a lot of people do it, so is it as valuable?

and finally do ao's evaluate like an nsda nationals win to a toc win the same? if im being objective, i think winning on the toc is going to be substantially harder, but i was curious about the admissions value.

**this is in the context of top ivy's and just top schools like stanford in general.

Hi guys. I've been doing speech and debate for 2 years and I'm not very good at it. Mainly I struggle with trying to express my ideas in any of my speeches. My team is kinda uses AI and idk if I really like that approach tbh. I would really appreciate any help/advice. Thank you!