Batchelor,+Sylvie

I debated three years at Bingham High School in policy and extemp. I currently debate for the __#|University__ of Utah in parli, NFA LD, After Dinner Speaking, Prose, and Extemp.

I am fine with speed. However, it is super unnecessary to start your speech yelling at your top speed, because it will still take me at least 10 seconds to adapt to whatever that speed is. So start off slower. Also, __**slow down**__ on taglines and plan, counterplan, and perm texts. It is only hurting you if you don't. Speed can be a strategic tool, but not if it is used to exclude your opponents or your judge.

CP/DA I prefer a straight-up debate. I love PICs, but am susceptible to theory if well argued and if the abuse is **clearly** articulated and impacted out well. All disads and counterplans are fine by me, but I'm more likely to be on your side if they're case-specific. That doesn't go to say I won't vote on a generic agent CP, you just have to make sure you do a really good job on the impact debate. I also dislike politics disads, but you can definitely still read them, just make sure they are specific and well-warranted.

K I don't know all of your Kritik literature, just the basic ideas behind the argument so if you are going to go for the K make the arguments clear. If you consider yourself an expert on a specific kritik, assume I know very little, in order to force yourself to explain more and better. Questions? Ask. I run kritiks in college debate and I really enjoy them when they are explained and specific. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round or I’ll revert to a policy-maker/consequentialist mindset.

T I like impacts on T. I like kritiks of topicality. If impacted and well flushed out I'll vote on it. If you're going to go for T in front of me, make sure to spend a good amount of time on the standards debate. Saying "They make us lose ground by doing X. That's unfair to us 'cause we have nothing to run and will always lose" simply isn't going to cut it. Proven in-round abuse by reading the arguments you had prepped going into the round, and then saying these arguments do not link because of abuse on T, is one example.

Theory Clearly prove abuse and/or how the opposite team makes debate worse, and I'll probably vote for you. I don't like to vote on theory first, unless you make it a big issue.

Do not be offensive. I try to give speaker points higher than 27.5. But that is where I will start deducting if you are rude or offensive.

I try to intervene as little as possible and hate calling for evidence, but I will if a certain piece of evidence is contested or absolutely necessary. Please feel free to ask me questions. I definitely tried to make this as concise as possible so I probably left some key things out.