Traber,+Becca

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com

I debated for four years on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School. I currently am the assistant coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I try to be as tab as possible, but we all know, that a truly tabula rasa judge is impossible. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments. Also, try to pronounce every word -- I'm not a fan of the drone that a lot of LDers have adopted, where they simply slur their arguments.

I have a slightly higher threshold for extension of warrants than most judges. If the full argument and warrant is not extended, than it does not exist.

By default, I assume the resolution functions as a statement that the affirmative must prove "true," in the sense that they outline what it means to affirm and then meet that burden. This doesn't exclude any sort of argument that you can articulate in terms of proving the resolution true. This means that I will vote for well developed versions of arguments like skepticism, states aren't moral actors, and so on. This does not exclude utilitarianism or whatever. In general, I will vote on just about any arguments you want to give me, on two conditions a) they are warranted and b) the ballot story/ the reason for me voting is warranted.

Indeed, I don't even mind being asked to ignore the resolution and vote on something else. I just need a very well developed ballot story. In addition, both pre and post-fiat, I'm not a fan of being told to rely on my intuition as a weighing mechanism. I am not going to just assume that a certain thing is bad or morally wrong -- I need framework establishing why it is bad or morally wrong. This goes for discursive impacts as well as post-fiat impacts. And yes, this means you need to warrant why people dying is bad. Please, please don't just read seven extinction scenarios on the aff and then sit down. You will annoy me so much.

That being said, I have no objections to either critical arguments or policy-type arguments, given a fitting framework. Judging policy is not my favorite thing in the world, but I will do it. I love critical arguments, but they need to be comprehensible, clearly explained, and linked to a weighing mechanism.

Cross-X is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use flex-prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time. You should think of CX as the fantastic opportunity it is and take advantage of it; I am deeply unhappy watching two debaters mumble at each other, while back-flowing, about tag lines. That being said, please do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive.

Theory: I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations. I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate. I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key. Make sure you have a robust interpretation that isn't simply the same thing as the violation, particularly if you are going under competing interpretations paradigm. It is meaningless for me to vote for a norm that is simply "x bad." I assume counter interpretations are offense unless told otherwise.

Last: I don't default any which way, anymore. I have been persuaded out of this! I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.