Legionaires,+Crystal

crystallegionaires@gmail.com

Background Weber State University- 5 years Alta High School- 3 years Judging and helping at West High- 5 years

Update for Southwestern There are a some things to note when I am in the back. I don't pretend to not be subject to biases but I will do my best to make those biases known. I'm not the biggest fan of your pomo psychoanalysis whatever but I will do my best to understand but you need to understand that a lot of your terminology is pretty foreign to me so you need to explain why I should care about your simulcra. I however will not put up with arguments such as your second wave TERFy feminism args. I reserve the right to vote down arguments that are morally problematic though I don't often have to do so.

I have a sensory processing disorder which not only means I can't understand incredibly fast spreading, it also quickly gets on my nerves when debaters decide to try to press my limit in the debate to get a few more arguments and I will penalize you for doing so. If I continually have to tell you to slow down and you are not receptive, I will mark you down .1 speaker points for every further violation and I will not continue to tell you beyond a few times. I'm pretty serious about this. If you need to test to find what works for me, I would suggest going a bit slower than what I say is ok to be safe as in round most people speed up a bit. I've also noticed a tendency for me to award higher speaker points to teams that slow down and attempt to make connections beyond just straight logos arguments. In any case, I need to understand you in order for you to win the debate so it's in your best interest. I also have some disabilities that make lots of typing very painful so if you are making me type a lot with theory shell after theory shell, I'm probably going to miss something.

Cross-x is very important if not more important than some speeches because it helps set the mood for the judge in the debate of how they feel about the debaters. In a close debate, one's confidence and wrecking arguments in cross-x could shift perception enough to get a ballot. That being said, don't be dickish in cross-x, nobody wants to see that.

I generally believe that truth outweighs tech and one good argument can beat 10 shitty arguments. However, I will very often prefer arguments that are more explained unless of course there is an argument that cuts out the argument's thesis that is not well explained or perhaps that part is more well explained. Analysis is critical even if an argument is dropped, if you don't do the necessary explanation to tell me why that argument matters, I'm not going to buy it.

I think an argument can have a zero percent chance of a risk but the argument needs to be devastating.

I don't like to read cards in the debate as I find it influences me beyond what the debaters said. I will check if there is something in question or if I'm looking to give feedback but you can't trust me to read your cards and decide your win in the round. You are supposed to be doing the debate and influencing me, not your authors.

. As far as argument wise, I've was a K debater for almost the entirety of my debate career running arguments of primarily anthropocentrism, disability and transness. I'm well versed in a lot of other K arguments but I'm not going to claim that I know everything or every theory even within my fields of study so it's better to not assume that I know what is going on and take care to explain things. If I get confused, it's something I'm going to get hung up on at least momentarily that will prevent understanding other arguments being made.

I think nontopical affs and k affs are probably good for debate however, I do find myself voting on framework since a lot of affs tend not to have a disad to the framework that isn't solved by the topical version of the aff or don't know how to properly weight their disads against the topical version. I can be persuaded otherwise that it is a good political method etc. One place I think framework debaters can and should be doing more work on is the explicit impact weighing of their impacts against these disads.

I default to a policymaking framework but am open to pretty much whatever you argue as long as it is substantiated

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I often find theory debates very useless and more time wasters than actual arguments. For me the link between the standards and the impacts is critical as is the reasonable explanation of why specifically this one action deserves a ballot being lost. Absent that, I don't see myself voting on theory in the near future.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Performative arguments, whatever the fuck that means, are probably good for debate. Debate is a performance it is not straight logos but emotion and connection and making people feel that connection with others in debate. There can be straight up debates that can meet this but I find individuals are so stuck in the line-by-line that the I guess the humanness is forgotten. I like watching those that are more creative with their performative approaches and often reward them for doing so but that doesn't mean I look down on those that don't choose to implement their strategies in "non-normative" patterns.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Counterplans are cool and I like creative counterplans but I'm not going to grant you 100% solvency unless you give explanations that compare your solvency mechanisms versus the aff and hash apart the differences. Word pics aren't my fav especially the ableism ones but I'm willing to vote on them.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I haven't watched a lot of disad debates but indepth policy debates can be interesting. You will be rewarded for not just reading every card in your file but giving indepth comparative analysis