Tulane,+Shaylee


 * Updated:** Oct 12th 2015
 * Background****:** As you may have guessed my name is Shaylee Tulane. I graduated from Viewmont High in UT in 2012. I competed in LD for 4 years and I have now competed for the University of Utah for the past 4 years.


 * General Overview: **__ I am honestly down for anything as long as it is accessible to your opponent. __ I try judge solely off of the flow. If the flow doesn't tell me who won, then I will first turn to the framework debate. (For LD) For policy I will usually default to a risk type paradigm. Meaning what is the risk of either the advantages and or disadvantages and then I will evaluate on impact calc.

Previously I called myself a traditional judge, but the more I have down college debate I am more of a mixture. I am down for anything. But I do think that debate should still be accessible, so if you start to spread your opponent out who is more traditional I will intervene. That will mostly result in you loosing speaker points.

I **WILL** drop you if you make any racist, sexist, ablest, transphobic, xenophobic, homophobic etc. remarks or create a hostile environment in the round. I **WILL** drop you if any new arguments in the rebuttals. I do, however, like it when the other team first, calls out the new arguments, and second responds to them.
 * Important things:**
 * Slow down** between tag lines.

**Theory:** I like good theory debates. That being said, don't throw just any theory at me and expect a win. For me you need to do a couple things:
 * I do not vote on potential for abuse. If you are going for theory you need to prove the violation of your interpretation. Otherwise it is just complaining with nothing to back it up.
 * Theory for me can come down to the competing interpretations. But reasonability arguments are fine, but once again please please please prove why that is true.
 * Voters are a must! Please give me an a priori voter at the very least. I default to competing interpretations when evaluating the interpretation. Also please have some unique standards. Education/fairness for me are more of impacts to standards.
 * If you drop the T [if an A priori argument is made (which please do)] I will look there first in my decision.


 * CP's, Perms, Plans and DAs:** If you have them, then go for it.
 * Politics DAs **NEED** provide a clear link that is unique to this resolution. I think it makes the link scenario cleaner. I find it harder to vote on politics if I do not have a clear link to the plan text. Republicans and democrats will backlash against anything I think it more of a question of if you can prove why this plan uniquely causes X.
 * Perms. Slow down for the perm text. Clear net bens. Also some argumentation on how the permation functions. I think that is usually articulated within the net bens but sometimes people forget to show of the permation functions.


 * K's: ** I love them. But that comes with a warning: I will listen to anything you want to throw at me, but if you run a CP or Disads then you are going to have an uphill battle. If you choose to exist in multiple worlds you're going to have to prove that 1. multiple worlds good and 2. your rhetoric doesn't link you to the kritik. If you don't do that then I give all liberty for the other team to re-link you on the other positions. Some things I like:
 * I believe all kritiks need a solid framework. I feel like your access to the round through a kritik can based on if you win the framework.
 * If you run a reject alt, please give me some good solvency. Reject alts are harder for me to evaluate but if you have some good solvency then I am all for it.
 * Like I said I am down for any crazy lit. you want to run. But make sure the Links, impacts, and the Alt are clear.
 * Case specific links are preferable.


 * Philosophy****:** I love philosophy. That is what I focused most of my high school career on. You should be clearly linking how/why this ideology effects how we should perceive the resolution. I love some good philosophy/value rounds.


 * What to do to earn low speaks:**
 * Being rude
 * Any type of ism. Like I said I **WILL** drop you if you make any racist, sexist, ablest, transphobic, xenophobic, homophobic etc. remarks or create a hostile environment in the round. And by dropping I mean both dropping you in the round and I will not give you above a 15 in speaks.
 * Spreading to spread. What I mean is I can understand to put out 2-4 sheets of paper. But when you are presenting 7-12 ( I have seen it done before) pieces of paper your not debating.
 * Not sign posting. I have seen this way to much .If you don't sign post then I can't flow, which means I get to play the guessing game and you might not where I put your arguments.


 * Speed:** I can handle speed. I really do love technical rounds. But I would proceed with caution. Like I said if you make the round inaccessible, then i will drop your speaks.

As I stated above, I was a traditional debater in high school. So when it comes to judging LD, I turn to the Value and Criterions first. Somethings to be aware of:
 * Values/Criterions:**
 * I don't find the standard values like life, morality etc. very interesting. I have voted on those values in the past however. Just please provide me a good articulation on why they matter other than "because you would be dead."
 * Please have a criterion. I really get annoyed when the neg says "Yay I accept their value and criterion." That kind of defeats the purpose of LD in my mind. However, I find it necessary to clarify that you can still argue that you uphold your opponents value better. I just want to see some clash on the value criterion debate.
 * This is where I look to first when it comes to evaluating the round, it helps me frame my decision. However I will not solely vote off of the value or criterion. I feel like you need to prove how you gain access to your value or criterion also to win.
 * Also please impact the value and criterion. I think this is a something that people ignore, if your value/criterion doesn't impact society at large then why are we even talking about it.