Crucilla,+Sarah

I debated for Byram Hills and graduated in 2016. I am now coaching Loyola and attending Caltech.


 * __Short Version:__**

Debate is about more than just winning. If you say anything sexist, ableist, racist, homophobic, or offensive in any other manner at any point in the round, you will lose, regardless of how ahead of your opponent you are on the flow.

Spreading is ok, but make sure to slow down for taglines, plan texts, alts, etc. I really do not want to miss anything J. Always err on the side of clarity rather than speed.

I appreciate flushed out arguments more than blips. I am probably not the best judge to pref if you are purely a tricks debater.

If someone reads a critical argument, please try to engage in it, especially if it is personal. First, nothing hurts more than someone saying that your narrative is void because you didn’t use Times New Roman font, had yellow instead of blue highlighter, etc. (I am not saying that you cannot run theory, but think about what you read). Second, by not engaging, you have the potential to completely exclude the debater’s voice. Oh, and also please please please do not read skep against Ks.

Read any argument you would like as long as they fall within the above guidelines. My favorite type of debate is a good K debate, but that does not mean I will not vote on plans, theory, traditional cases, etc.


 * __Long Version:__**

It’s super easy to get caught up in the competition and rankings, but please try to have fun and learn something through debate. My paradigm for the most part is just a guideline. If you have a really awesome (and non-offensive and comprehensible) strat you’d like to run that does not fit in with everything I wrote in my paradigm, you can still run it. I would rather watch a good debate than a debate that you’re not comfortable with. I would also like a debate where I understand what you’re saying (which 9.9 times out of 10 means that you also understand what you’re saying); I will not vote on things that were not made clear in the round.

Feel free to sit or stand.

Spreading is fine. Please try, though, to be clear (I will yell clear and slow if needed). If I cannot understand you and miss your arguments, it probably won’t turn out well for you. In other words, efficiency impresses me more than speed.
 * Speed:**

Side note: Please be kind with your spreading. If you are up against someone who is not used to it, please speak at a slower speed so they can be included in the round.

I was primarily a K debater, and I really enjoy critical discussions. Performance is fine (cool performance cases can lead to some of the most interesting debates in my opinion).
 * Kritiks:**

A few general rules: Please do not assume I know exactly what you are talking about. First, I want you to demonstrate that you know how your arguments function. Second, I have not read every critical author’s works.

Each argument you read should be well flushed out. Make your role of the ballot clear and explain exactly which offense does (and doesn’t) link back. Anything cross-applied to take out your opponent’s arguments should also be clear. Overviews and crystallization are always helpful, but especially so when reading kritikal arguments.

If you are not sure what your K says and/or you are uncomfortable with the K debate, don’t force yourself to read a K because you have me as a judge. Run what you’re comfortable with.

You can run it, but run it with caution. Theory should be used as a tool to check abuse, not run frivolously to avoid engagement with cases. I think (certain) no abuse claims can hold a lot of weight when theory is run in those situations. That being said, if legitimate abuse occurs, feel free to run a well thought-out theory shell. I will vote off of RVIs if won. Please extend implications of theory and voters and explain clearly how your shell links to the latter.
 * Theory:**

I think that LARP debates can be really interesting to watch. Please make sure that Plan/CP texts are clear. For the latter, make sure to be clear on how your CP is unique from the plan as well as explain how it solves for the harms in the plan. Oh, and weigh, weigh weigh!
 * LARP:**

I am fine with evaluating phil-based arguments as long as you’re clear on exactly what your philosophy implies (and your philosophy is not blatantly oppressive). I was not a phil debater, so please do not assume I have extensive (or any) prior knowledge on your specific framework. When reading these arguments, be aware of their implications, especially against K arguments. Also, make sure to a. explain how your offense links back to your framework b. interact with your opponents offense c. if you go for any pre-req arguments, please explain their warrants clearly. Also, please do not make the argument that continental philosophy is not philosophy…
 * Philosophy/Framework debate:**

I don’t like these arguments. I find them for the most part to not be compelling (especially against Ks).
 * Tricks:**

I will definitely call for a card after the round if evidence ethics becomes an issue. I also dislike misrepresented evidence. I will also call for a card if I am not sure if it said what you thought it said. I will NOT put the round together for you based on what I read, but I will make sure that everything is accurate.
 * Evidence Ethics:**

Speak efficiently and have arguments of good quality? Engage with your opponent’s position? Be courteous to your opponent? You will get high speaks. Say something mean? Ignore my paradigm completely? Exclude your opponent from the round? You will get low speaks. In other words, your argumentation strategies and ability to create an engaging atmosphere are what I look for in determining speaks.
 * Speaks:**

If you are not sure whether I’ll evaluate something, feel free to ask me before the round.

If you have any additional questions, please email me at scrucill@caltech.edu or ask me before the round.