Boyer,+Bekah

Bekah Boyer! Greenhill School

= THIS PARADIGM HAS BEEN UPDATED FOR GREENHILL '15 =

I competed on various circuits, first in policy debate for 2 years, LD for another 2 (and I have even dabbled in extemp and interp), at Colleyville Heritage in TX. I've worked at Greenhill School as the assistant LD coach under Aaron Timmons since late 2010.

** Let's make a few things incredibly clear: **

 * I feel very strongly about evidence ethics in academia. **

**IF YOU DO NOT SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE IN SOME WAY WITH YOUR OPPONENT** //(EITHER THROUGH FLASHING, VIEWING LAPTOPS, SHARING COMPUTERS, OR PAPER COPIES)// **I WILL NOT CALL FOR IT AFTER THE ROUND.** **//Exceptions will be dependent on previous disclosure of the citations and extenuating circumstance.//**


 * DO __NOT__ CLIP CARDS - Every time you clip a card, a kitten gets kicked. Don't kick kittens; don't clip cards.** __//Y//__//ou w__ill lose the round if you have clipped.__// **I will not be lenient on this issue** . I may spare speaker points if you attempt to follow the norms outlined or demonstrate a norm that prevents the harms of clipping, etc. *e.g. "saying "cut the card there" and then IMMEDIATELY marking where it is cut instead of saying "cut the card at (last word spoken)."

Check out this article if you don't understand "card clipping." 

If you do not know how to cite something, [] is a great resource. I am happy to talk to you about this. Seriously, y'all, people get kicked out university/have their careers ruined for improper, albeit unintentional, citation. I'm not opposed to an entirely analytical case if you don't want to take the time to give credit where credit is due. One great way to combat this in the community is to disclose your positions on http://hsld.debatecoaches.org/bin/view/Main/
 * I expect cites to be able to be provided for all evidence used.** I reserve the right to call for them if I so choose - I may do so randomly or if I suspect something is amiss. Evidence ethics is extremely important, and I will let card-clipping, plagiarism, and forged evidence affect my decision as I see fit - in the past, it has just affected speaker points. If it is an egregious, intentional violation (yes, I determine this) I may vote you down/decrease your speaks/refuse to vote on that argument, even if your opponent does not point it out; if your opponent does indicate that I should punish, I will be more comfortable smiting your points.

I consider myself alright at flowing, but I am not afraid to admit I am not perfect or even close to the best. That said, I will __not__ vote on something that I: a) do not not understand //and/or// b) don't have on the flow
 * What is on my flow is what counts. ** Deal with it.

You will be able to tell if I am lost or confused. I will hold you to your extensions based on what I have on the flow. Generally, when I call for evidence, it's because I want to see it so I can give you tips on how to use it later.


 * Arguments are not like the TARDIS: A blippy spike in the 1st speech cannot be blown into an unprecedented, enormous independent issue later in the debate. **

==**__I am okay with "Flex Prep" if that means you can ask questions during prep. If your "flex prep" is the practice in which you can apply cx time for extra prep, that's not cool.__** (ex: "I have 1:42 sec of CX left, I'll add that as prep."==

Best way to make sure we are on the same page? Be clear. SLOW DOWN WHEN YOU ARTICULATE A WARRANT AND ITS IMPLICATION IN ROUND. I have a terrible poker face. Use that to your advantage. It is obvious when I am not getting something. Loudness and/or clarity is usually more of the issue for me than speed.
 * IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree)**
 * //Pro tip: Give me prioritized voters.This helps me establish that YOU have a strategy and are not just grasping at straws.// I'm fine with speed, but I'd prefer you to make a couple of really solid arguments than many blippy ones. ** ** I will say clear twice per speech before I stop flowing that speech. After a 3rd "clear" in a speech/round speaks will be noticeably affected. **

//In terms of extensions --- Just because something is conceded does not mean I will extend it for you; that only makes the extension easier for you. Work on your part is still required, points will reflect this//.
 * __Speaker Points, in general-__** I try to average a 27.7 If tenths aren't allowed, I'll average a 27.5. A good debater who does everything necessary to win with a smart strategy and clear extensions, evidence comparison, and weighing between arguments will receive a 29-29.5. I only give 30sin certain circumstances, usually for a perfect speech, and I will tell you why you got one. //In the 2013-2014 season, I have only given 2 30s//. I //assume everyone starts with a 27.5 you go up or down by tenths of a point based on strategy, extensions, speaking style, etc --- if tenths aren't available, I will round to the nearest .5.// If I round up, I will indicate that on the ballot or in the RFD. Yes, I know this is subjective: welcome to any evaluation of public speaking. // Protip: If you give me a phrase I write on my ballot, I start you at a 28 automatically instead of 27.5. //

=Unless given another method, I will default to v/c structure as the mechanism to evaluate the round. I acknowledge and endorse the advent of multiple, valid methods of argumentation. Whatever you do, please make an effort to do it well (your arguments must have warrants). // I need a weighing mechanism and offense that links in to that weighing mechanism. // **Most importantly, I need you to outline how a debater can expect to access my ballot - particularly if you are employing a non-traditional method of debate.**=

__ Argument Specific Questions: __

 * __RVI's -__ It is unlikely that I will vote on RVI from an I/M unless there is demonstrated abuse** in the round (you can prove this by running something where the link depends on the interp --- or you can establish it in CX). Otherwise, ** I am open to listening to RVIs as long as there is clear, obvious weighing between the standards of a competing interpretation! **

__**Default Spikes/Presumption/etc**__: Look, it's a pretty common strategy... mostly because it's easy. I have voted on them when the lack of clash leaves me no other option. Prove to me why you don't need them and speaks will certainly reflect that. Don't read a nail-bomb case in front of me and expect me to be impressed. **To clarify: I am __not__ opposed to hearing skepticism, permissibility arguments, a prioris, presumption,** or whatever new-fangled thing you young'uns are calling it. **I just need a reason why those arguments are true, just like any other argument AND how they function as offense/terminal defense.** Those arguments have strategic value; I just fear the trend that many debaters employ: blippy spikes as a crutch to avoid substance. If you want to discuss this, please let me know.

__**Narratives/Micro political argument****s**__ - I am alright with these. I do believe that the debate space can allow the oppressed to speak. Still, //I am a firm advocate of the consensual nature of all dialogue. The speech act is half talking and half listening//: it is undesirable to force people to participate in discourse that would wound them in some way. That said, particularly i f the narrative is graphic, I expect you to disclose the nature of the discussion before the round starts to warn me, your opponent, and anyone in the room. Feel free to talk to me about this.

__**"Policy" Args versus "Traditonal" versus whatever:**__ Debate is debate. An argument is an argument. As long as it has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I'll listen.

Misc. Laundry List of Paradigmatic questions:

-__ Topicality/Theory are a gateway issues, UNLESS other justifications/arguments are given. __ **If there is not a voter or a violation extended, I will not vote on theory/T.** Re: "Reasonability" vs "Competing Interps": Forget the buzzwords: everything collapses to reasonability if the debaters aren't doing comparative work. I would prefer you to have C/I's and substantial clash/weighing against each other's standards OR establish a metric of "reasonablity"

What I don't want: having to wade through the arguments and establish my own opinion

- Perms are a test of competition. Just as I would like to see a CP text/advocacy, I prefer there to be a perm text/advocacy established so everything is clear.

-You gotta have uniqueness to win a turn.

-If there is inherent harm in the squo and there is a risk that action would solve for that harm, I will take that action. (meaning I'm extremely partial to "risk of solvency" args). Defense doesn't win debate rounds.

= **__Other Issues__** =


 * __Behavior (in round)-__**-- If you know me well or I know you, congratulations; I'm pretty neat and you must be too! I always want debaters to feel comfortable in a competitive environment. I am not scary and I do not think many people are--- so we should all get along!

//But...PLEASE __DO NOT__ make your opponent uncomfortable in round because I have judged you a lot or I taught a lab you were in etc//. I have been on the other side of that too many times, and it's super awkward. By all means, say hello outside of the round (sometimes I even have baked things to share)!

__**Behavior (at anytime):**__ Be kind to each other. We are all here because debate is awesome - though our reasons may vary. Be courteous and polite. Say what you need to say and stay appropriate.

If you want to do a rebuttal redo, ask how to clarify an argument/response you made, or ask me anything post-round, that is definitely alright. I will do my best to help with the time I am allotted. Feel free to ask me anything I may not have covered adequately/did not address at all. You can always reach me through e-mail at bboyer323@gmail.com If I don't respond to the follow-up email within 72 hours, please email again.

= Tl; dr: You do you, but watch my face - if I am annoyed or look confused, proceed at your own risk. =