chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

Hi debaters! I'm Evelyn and I have mainly competed in PF and Policy, but am fairly familiar extemp and other speaking events. I've competed in debate before so I can flow technical arguments, however I prefer a good ol' fashioned debate and don't make technicalities your entire case. Extra points if you can make me laugh :)

Here are some things that I look for:

1. Sportsmanship: Be respectful. Debate is not a place where you can attack your opponent personally. Any obvious disrespect will guarantee you and your team the loss.
2. Spreading: if I can't understand you, I can't flow. If I don't understand your argument, I can't take it into consideration when making my final decision. Having a few quality arguments is more impactful than having 8-9 different arguments that I can barely understand. Please speak at a speed where your judges and opponents can understand you.
3. Time: Try not to go under/over by more than 10 seconds (just finish your sentence quickly please!), but it won't be a major factor on why you win or lose a round.
4. Cross: I won't flow cross, so please bring up any arguments you want me to weigh from cross in your later speeches. You can cut each other off if necessary, but don't abuse it.
5. Final Speeches: No new arguments. I won't flow them. It's against the rules and unfair to your opponents who aren't able to respond.
6. Standing up, eye contact, and good volume are all characteristics of a confident debater.

My email is parkev1@wsdstudent.net if you guys have any questions about debate/ballots. Good luck!