Hall,+Chris

Chances are I am not going to update this to my current philosophy by the time that you read this. In that case, if you wish to know more, send me an email

Chrishallsemail@gmail.com

Background
Weber State University Debate Team- Sophomore Alta High School- 3 years Assistant Coach at West High School- 2 years

**Topline**
I believe I have an unique experience as an autistic disabled member of the debate community and I believe that any opening of inclusion in debate is probably best for activity as a whole. 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.


 * Important Information- Because of my sensory processing disorder, I require debaters to be clear and to not go their top speed. I am fine with most levels of speed as long as there is clarity. However, if you are too fast, I will require you to slow down or I will not flow your arguments as the sound that speed is overwhelming.***

I ran mostly K's, critical, and identity affs. I am especially open to Anthro, Marx and Ableism kritiks, not word pics unless it's egregious. I am fine for most Counterplans, Disads, and other off case positions. I also always love a good, healthy T debate. That means it's CLEAR and you SLOW DOWN. I feel a strong case debate is necessary for many positions to warrant a ballot I generally think policy FW is bullshit and ROB is usually just vote for me, so you need to explain these arguments in front of me. You will have to do more work, but you can win these in front of me

First rule of debating in front of me: Be considerate of others.
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, queers, disabled individuals, etc.

**Paperless debate:**
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

**Argument explanation and extension**
I feel some debates rely on less information to confuse opponents and confuse the judge as to why the argument applies and how it functions. This happens most often to me with kritiks based on ontology or far left kritiks, counterplans that claim to solve 100% of the case and shallow links to disads e.g. most politics disads. This doesn't mean I won't buy the arguments, this just means that they need to be more throughly explained than some other arguments in the round.

Theory
I think 2 condo or dispo worlds are ok even if they are contradictory. However, I almost always vote down a team that takes both of these into the 2nr as long as the other team points it out. I think the performative contradiction holds the most weight and at least that the affirmative should be able to have one viable, competitive permutation to check back condo. Comparative specific analysis of standards and impacts will be necessary to win a ballot from these arguments I feel most other theories are probably not voting issues and reject the argument not the team works for those besides condo and perf con. For these, there needs to be specific defense and warrants why the argument can be kicked

Topicality-
I think T has been ignored on the highschool circuit as an option for the 2nr, even though I view it as a viable option. This being said, unless you plan on having it at least until the block, please don't run it.

If you do choose to go for T: The interp needs to be crystal clear Generic standards are ok if they have specific applicable comparative warrant analysis. Also standards are internal links, not impacts and need clear links to the voters Voters need analysis to why the impacts of fairness, education, etc matter

I default to competing interpretations and that Topicality is a voter

Kritiks-
Links need to be explained clearly and are probably disads to the perm, but you need to tell me because I am not doing this work for you Impact calculus and comparison are __necessary__ especially in regards to the perm debate Alt needs to be clear in text and in function e.g. what happens in the world of the alt and how does that resolve the aff impacts? If there is no alt, the negative needs to tell me why I shouldn't evaluate it as a linear disad. It doesn't take much but neg teams that forget can lose a lot of offense here

CPs-
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 Analysis is far more compelling than a wall of 2nc solvency evidence

I believe all perms that contain all the aff and some of the counterplan are legitimate but can be convinced otherwise

DAs-
I hold the amount of analysis necessary to win a disad to a high threshold Disads are NOT just walls of evidence that win ballots

Uniqueness needs to make some sense Links and internal links have to be contextually explained why they make sense which is not just reading cards Link stories are especially important Impact analysis and comparison is crucial The disad outweighs and turns the case needs to be warranted. Most scenarios require a disad and case or disad and a counterplan

Case-
I love seeing a good case debate and wish more case was used in a debate.

Case turns need to be explained and contextualized Defense needs reasons to why it matters in the decision, I think Inherency Explanation of what solvency takeouts do to the aff

Affs need to prove why these don't matter

Framework-
FW can be an RFD but it needs a lot of work and not just cards to get there, check my Topicality paradigm for extra information K affs are when I'm most likely to vote for framework Usually is better at helping other positions, FW is not a reason to vote for you but a reason to not vote for them or a reason to prefer another of your positions

Usually needs some form of topic link or specific reasons why that is not necessary
Perm is important and usually can resolve the negative positions but needs to be explained Role of the ballot is important and Role of the critic Methods usually determine which team resolves all the impacts Exclusionary role of the ballots are more difficult to win in front of me

Critics of the opponents are stronger links How does rejecting opponents solve/why reject the perm Role of the ballot is important and Role of the critic Exclusionary role of the ballots are more difficult to win in front of me Methods are important to resolving solvency
 * Neg**