Crystal+Hall

crystalkerrihall@gmail.com

Background

Weber State University- 4 years

Alta High School- 3 years

Judging and helping West High- 4 years

**Update for Golden Desert/Berkeley**

From recent experiences I have had, I have come to the conclusion that viewing myself as just an arbiter of arguments is inaccurate. There are real things that happen in debate, real violences and I think it is my job as a critic to down things that are blatantly problematic. Clearly this is something that will need constant interrogation. Current ones that are on this list, second wave feminism that essentializes a woman to being a cis woman, arguments that call out someone for their identity e.g. trans people shouldn't call themselves trans because gender is a social construct (an exception is why white disabled people get to call themselves crips, which while the community has decided on this, is an evolving issue I think needs further decontruction from an antiblack viewpoint), white guilt bad args, racism/orientalism good, patriachy good. I need a lot of explanation for why capitalism is good because personally it isn't.

Debate isn't about straight logos and I will let myself be influenced by pathos and ethos as most judges are, even if they don't admit it. While I cannot always have a stable line for when or if this happens, if violence has happened in such a way to significantly harm or incapacitate a debater, I don't think as an educator I should force them to continue. This you have to prove your violence sounds incredibly victim blaming to me and just serves to support the white abled cis het elites that already run debate. Let's be clear, this doesn't mean every instance of ableist language is going to be a voting issue, sure it will play into my speaker points but clearly that standard is higher

Also I tend to not look at people in the eyes during debate. That's normal. Eye contact is very weird for me and it is thus better for me to not engage in that practice. Don't take this as me being disinterested

**Update for Alta** Unusual judging preferences

Extending your advantage isn't good enough. You need to explain each speech how your plan/method solves your aff. This is one of my most common negative ballots Dropped arguments aren't suddenly true. Explain them Impact framing is critical <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I don't buy tag line extensions. Make an argument, warrant and impact it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">In light of the election, I think that framework needs to have a discussion of how or what sort of progress can be done when the best that "progressive" minds can do is be obstructionists. In the current situation, I think specific instances or strategies are likely necessary to be able to get any sort of ground on that front. I think this applies less to T, but I do think T framework still implies some need for a defense of politics as it seems as implicit critique of how we engage in politics or deliberative behavior <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Performance debate is good and I think the link to the topic doesn't need to be incredibly strong but needs strong external Da's to framework <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I believe most theory is essentially useless and it's almost impossible for me to vote on it even conditionality. You would have to provide very clear in round abuse and impact it out exceptionally well. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Not a big fan of psychoanalytical or postmodern literature as they have been read in debate. If I can't understand it, probably not going to vote for it <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">***Important Information*- Because of my sensory processing disorder, I require debaters to be clear and to not go their top speed. If unclear what the brightline is, students may ask for a test run before the debate starts. If you don't slow down, I won't catch your args and it's your loss. Furthermore, I am now reduce .1 speaker point for each egregious time I have to tell you to slow down or if I get tired of telling you so, I will reduce up to .5 speaker points.** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I explain most of these concepts in greater depth below

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">***2015-2016 Additional information***

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">It has come to my attention that the way that I view the ways aff arguments function in debates is significantly different than many other judges. This has made it difficult for some teams to get my ballot on the aff so these are Crystal's tips you of what you need to execute to win an affirmative ballot in front of me

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">This is ESPECIALLY true in the context of framework in which very few teams have gotten an affirmative ballot from me

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Explain the aff method, what you do and how you solve your impact every speech

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Explain the aff impact(s) and compare them to the negative’s

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">You need to explain every argument you are going for EVEN if your opponents have dropped that particular argument you are going for

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Topline**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I believe that debate should prioritize inclusion in debate and such I am welcoming of nonnormative bodies into debate. I do follow the flow unless there is something egregious or important that is important to discuss prior to that. As a judge I will make mistakes and I will not always make what is perceived to make the "correct" decision. However, I will do my best in round to make the decision and am open to criticism while noting that no criticism after the decision can or will change what is on the ballot.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">***Important Information*- Because of my sensory processing disorder, I require debaters to be clear and to not go their top speed. If unclear what the brightline is, students may ask for a test run before the debate starts. If you don't slow down, I won't catch your args and it's your loss**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Summary**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I am most familiar with kritiks, specifically those that are Marx, Anthro and ableism kritiks. I generally don't like ableism word pics as they often detract from the structure but that may be necessary in some isntances. Each use of the R word will result in -5 speaker points and will make me want to vote you down. Just don’t do it. I run K affs so I am sympathetic to them especially in cases of identity politics but I will get to more of that below. I like topicality if executed appropriately but find most debaters speak too fast for me to adequately be able to understand and write down all the arguments. Link stories are most important for me. If I do not find a team adequately explaining an argument even if it is dropped, I won't evaluate it. If this happens with an entire affirmative case or all of the positions of negative case, I will presume that the other side will win. The only case this is not true is when both teams fail to adequately explain their positions, I will default to the negative. This ends up happening anywhere from 25%-40% of the rounds I judge

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**First rule of debating in front of me: Be considerate of others.**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">There is simply no excuse for being mean in any debate. There is a difference between being mean and having words come out wrong and I respect that. I will dock up to a full point for legitimate misconduct up until the time I sign the ballot. This especially includes not answering a question or wasting the entire cross-x on irrelevant tangents. I will absolutely not tolerate any demeaning of women, persons of color, black people, queer people, trans people, disabled individuals, etc.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Paperless debate:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I stop time when the flash drive comes out of the computer and will not time when handing the flash drive to the opponent as long as it takes 10 seconds or less. If for any reason your computer crashes or the document does not work when speaking, I expect your partner to have your speech ready for you

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Argument explanation and extension**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I find that I have an almost unreasonable threshold for explanation. I don’t buy tag line or shadow extensions especially for the affirmative solvency, alternative and counterplan solvency and root cause claims. More explanation is better than less. One of my high school coaches I think explained it best you should be a sniper bullet instead of a barrage of machine gun bullets. Make fewer and better arguments. This means 1 or 2 perms instead of 4 or 5. Explain what ontology or epistemology means instead of just extending it. Explain the internal links to your disads especially poltics disads. Explain how the topical version of the aff resolves the affirmative impacts. Explain how the alt resolves the 1ac impacts

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**For perms**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I don't believe in most intrinsic permutations and I have a hard time understanding how Perm do the CP and how in some instance timeframe permutations work. I am more than willing to evaluate it understanding these caveats even if it is dropped.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Necessary explanations

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Explain how the permutation actually functions and solves.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Give net benefits to the permutation WITH IMPACTS that are clear and weigh them against disads to the permutation

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Kritiks-**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I like Ks and they are by far my favorite argument to be ran in debate. However, the link level needs to be clear especially on this negative state action topic. It makes things a lot harder for ks but I still hold ks to the same standard of competition. It is not enough to have disads to the perm, links are necessary. If you don’t have an alt explain why I shouldn’t view the K as a nonunique linear disad. If you do have an alt explain it with clear contextual analysis.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you are going for Postmodern things like Baudrillard, Bataille, Heidegger etc things then I’m most likely not the greatest judge for you

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you go for a ROB that is just vote for me essentially, I’m really not terribly persuaded by that and will probably prefer vote for whoever did the best debating. I also don’t buy your ks are bad for debate, policy impact only stuff at all so just leave that at home

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Necessary explaination

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">A specific link to the aff with that directly links to the impact

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Why and how the alt solves the aff

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">For affs

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Explain why the kritik does not solve the aff impacts

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Explain how the aff solves the k impact

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Explain how your perm avoids the link and if it doesn't why the net benefit outweighs the disadvantages to it

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Performance/Identity**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">All debate is a performance but I especially love new and unique ways that individuals engage with the resolution especially when it pertains to their embodiment. I think identity debates are necessary steps to mitigate the violent societies that we live in and that includes debate. Just explain why you chose to engage in the way you did and what that means in the context of the debate and resolution

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">For negatives, you need a link or good analysis of why comparative methods are better. Either way, there needs to be good contextual analysis of why this is the case

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Necessary explanation

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">How the performance of the 1ac disrupts space or the resolves the impacts of the 1ac

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">How the method functions

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">A terminal weighable impact that can be weighed against other positions

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">For performance Ks

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">A link that is not just a link to the status quo but actually to the position at hand

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**CPs-**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Clever contextual and advantage counterplans and specificity will be rewarded. I think consult and condition CPs are probably illegitimate but need a theory argument to have that be weighted. Net Benefits and links to the net benefits need to be clear. Contextual analysis is far more compelling than a wall of 2nc solvency evidence. No counterplan solves 100% of the case, you need to explain this and how you solve enough

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Necessary explanations

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">How the counterplan solves 100% or as much of the case as possible

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">How the counterplan avoids the net benefit

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">How the net benefit outweighs the things that counterplan doesn't solve

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Topicality-**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">A good T debate that is clever and well articulated is one of my most if not my most favorite debates to have. However, more often than not I cannot understand what teams are saying because they speed through all the standards and explanations too quickly. Just slow down. I’m probably getting very little as it is so help yourselves by slowing down. I think with a good definition and good specific analysis, T is always an option. I get running T as a time suck but I really don’t enjoy having it done so, not going to vote on RVI though. Most of the time I end up voting on T having no impact because people can’t explain a terminal impact to fairness and education

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Necessary explanations

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Why your interp is better than there's

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">What the internal link of fairness and education actually mean e.g. the collapse of debate, everyone quits etc

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Framework**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I think framework is a necessary part of debate and often a good discussion to have when done correctly. However, in order for me to start considering it, you need to have a viable topical version of the plan. Otherwise, I’m just going to vote on the exclusion da. Similarly aff teams need to contextualize their offense to the topical version of the aff. This mistake is what I vote on most of the time. Fairness is probably the most arbitrary standard but if you are going to do this, go for procedural fairness. Unless the aff is really off the wall, I don’t believe in the aff team ruining predictability much at with the invention of the case list as long as they are listed

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you are unable to prove why you need to not defend the state in this instance, you should consider running another position

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Necessary explanations

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">You need to have solid disads WITH IMPACTS that you weigh against the topical version. These should preferably have a way to outweigh the fairness/education but don’t necessarily have to. Also helpful is a counterinterp but I have yet to see a team actually know what to do with it and execute anything regarding the topical version

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**DAs-**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Disads need specific contextual link analysis for me to consider them. I’m not persuaded by risk of a link arguments and I believe in zero risk of some impacts with the appropriate corresponding impact defense card. Really hate the shallow internal links of like politics disads and don’t want to vote for these

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Necessary explanations

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">How the link story functions and gets to the impact in EVERY speech

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Why the disad outweighs and turns the case

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Case**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I love case debate but find more and more that debaters use far too many cards and far too little explanation. Just choose the best ones and impact them out and compare them to what the other team is saying for the love of God

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Theory**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I think theory has lost its value in debate. We agree that 2 condo worlds are good even if they are somewhat contradictory and PICs are good and floating piks are just the sign of good K analysis. I’m really hesitant to vote on theory even if it is dropped. Unless you prove that there is a reason why you are not wasting all of our time, I’m not interested

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Necessary explanations

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Specific instance of abuse to the round

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">A terminal impact that is more than just than fairness and education e.g. the collapse of debate.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">You need to win at least one standard and one violation which I guess implies and interpretation and prove why that stand is enough to outweigh the standards that you are losing