Smith,+Breann


 * Date Last Reviewed:** 2/3/18
 * Name:** Breann Smith [she/they]
 * Schools:** LCS ’16, Austin College ‘20
 * Conflicts:** Guyer High School


 * Debate Background**: I did 4 years of LD at LCS in Argyle, TX. I competed on the local, state, and national circuits, and was competitive at each level. Notable achievements include qualifying to the TOC my senior year by reaching semis at Isidore Newman and winning Holy Cross, qualifying to NSDA Nationals in LD both junior and senior years, and accumulating 85 career TFA state points. I am currently an LD assistant coach for Guyer HS and compete in mock trial at Austin College.


 * Disclaimer**: You can change any of the following preferences in round. You just have to tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me a warrant as to why it should be that way.

At the end of the round, this is my thought process:
 * __ Paradigm Proper: __**

First I evaluate who won the framework debate. I **__don’t__** vote here, but it does determine what offense I can look to in the round. I don’t care if you win Turn #5 to their contention level if it doesn’t have an impact back to the winning framework. From there I look at voters/crystallization to see who is winning the “best” issues in the round, i.e. who links to the winning framework and why the way they link matters more. (“Best”=however you decide to weigh. In the absence of weighing I default util in the sense that I vote for the biggest impact under the winning framework.)


 * __ Specific Issues __**


 * //Important Misc. Stuff//**
 * **Please provide a trigger warning if you plan on dealing with sensitive topics. I do have two triggers that I would rather not have to deal with in round unprepared.**
 * Email chains>flashing>Viewing laptop>Passing Pages
 * Speed is fine (plz be clear)
 * I will say "clear" and "loud" as many times as it takes, although I will get irritated after two times
 * Flex prep is okay if both parties are cool with it
 * I don’t count compiling docs or flashing/emailing as prep until it gets ridiculous (honestly it shouldn’t take over :20)
 * Your opponent needs to have access to anything you read if they ask
 * You can be perceptually dominant, but don’t be an asshole. UPDATE: I thought I was okay with this, but I'm a pretty chill person so it kinda irks me when people have no chill. That being said, you can still go for your perceptually dominant strat if that's your thing though.
 * Please don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, anthropocentric, etc. That's the kind of stuff that will get you dropped.
 * Just something I've noticed, you should ALWAYS ask the status of the offs if you're affirming and the neg runs multiple offs. I don't know why people don't seem to do that anymore.


 * //Flowing/Extensions/Signposting//**
 * Flowing**: I flow on paper (most of the time), and can catch quite a lot, but here are some preferences that would make everyone’s life easier:
 * Slow down a bit for tags and especially author names (I suck at getting author names)
 * Slow down for or repeat plan/counterplan texts and theory/T interpretations
 * If you plan on reading T or theory, please tell me so I can flow that part on my computer. It’s easier for me to get everything down typing.

1) Be extended in every rebuttal with the word “extend” in there somewhere 2) Have a claim and a warrant
 * Extensions**: I have a pretty low threshold on what counts as an extension, especially for the 1 and 2ARs. For me to consider something “Extended” at the end of the round, it needs to:


 * Signposting**: Keep in mind that I suck at getting author names unless you slow down for them, so if you say “off Smith 3” I’ll probably be confused until you explain what the arg is. It is significantly easier for me if you say “off contention one”/ “Off turn #2”/ “Off ”. (Seriously though, this was a problem at a couple of the tournaments I've been to).

I will mainly use three scales for speaker points [I do use tenths of a point].For novices I will generally use the "persuaders" scale. 30 – You persuaded me with your points wonderfully, had excellent presentation skills, and used one or two vocal fillers. 29 – You were pretty persuasive, had great presentation skills, and had four or five vocal fillers. 28 – You were persuasive for the most part, but could use a bit of work, presentation skills were a bit messy, and used a few too many vocal fillers. 27 – You weren’t very persuasive, had decent presentation skills, and you wasted minutes of your speeches with fillers. 26 or below – I wasn’t persuaded at all, you were all over the place with no rhyme or reason, and I had to start tallying your vocal fillers.
 * //Speed/Speaker Points//**
 * 1)** **For “Persuaders”**

30 – You were very clear, I knew exactly were you were on the flow, and you gave great line by line as well as overview analysis of the round 29 – You were pretty clear, I knew where you were the majority of the time, and you gave great line by line OR overview style analysis of the round 28 – You were mostly clear, I could *kind of* tell where you were, and you gave good line by line or overview analysis of the round 27 – You weren’t clear most of the time, you skipped around the flow a lot, and you didn’t really give good analysis of the round 26 or below – I couldn’t understand what you were saying, I had no idea where you were on the flow, and you gave little to no analysis of the round.
 * 2)** **For “Spreaders”**

3) **For Anyone at a bid tournament** [Adjusted based on the pool] 30 – I expect you to win the tournament or be in finals 29.5 – You should be in late out rounds 29 – You should break 28.5 – You could be on the bubble 28 – You could have a winning record 27.5 – You’ll probably break even 27 – You’ll probably have a losing record 26 – It was a rough time

I really don’t care what you do in terms of framework; you just have to have one that you can weigh back to. I am familiar with meta-ethics, dense philosophy, kritikal framing, and util. I know how burden structures work, but I never ran any myself.
 * //Framework//**

I’m indifferent to whatever style of case you want to run, whether it’s traditional, kritikal, performance, policy style, or tricky. You do you. I’d rather see you excel in a great tricks debate than see you have a shitty kritik debate because that’s what you think I like more.
 * //Different Styles/ Types of Debate//**

However, there is a catch: I really don’t like affs that aren’t topical. Nine times out of ten there will be a topical version of your aff, you’re just deliberately choosing to avoid it. That being said, I won't vote you down if you run an untopical case, but I certainly won’t be very happy.


 * //Perms//**

So I initially didn't think I was going to add a section on perms, but I think it could prove helpful
 * If you just say "Perm: Do both," then explain why the CP/Alt isn't mutually exclusive, then that is a test of competition. If you win the perm, the CP/Alt isn't competitive and I have to look elsewhere on the flow.
 * If you say "Perm: Do both" then explain why it isnt' mutially exclusive and then have net benefits to that perm, it becomes an advocacy I can vote on because then I have reasons why actively doing the perm would be a good thing.


 * //Theory/T//**

The only theory shell I will **__never__** vote on is **disclosure theory.** I do think that you should disclose, and I did my entire senior year even though I was functionally a lone wolf, however I don’t think people should be voted down for not doing it if it’s not explicitly required by the tournament. I don’t care if you’re winning your shell and they completely drop it, I won’t vote on it. This doesn’t mean I’ll down you for running it; I’ll just grumpily look elsewhere on the flow.

There are two other theory shells that I have a very high violation threshold for to consider:
 * **Brackets Theory**: For me to vote on brackets theory, you have to show that they have significantly altered the meaning or intention of the card. I won’t vote on brackets theory if all they do is change for grammar or offensive language.
 * **Wifi Theory**: For me to vote on wifi theory, you have to prove that the opponent was actively using the Internet to communicate with outside persons or to cut evidence/look something up during round. I will not vote on wifi theory if they weren’t using it for anything, but they just forgot to turn it off.

Other Theory notes:
 * I'm actually a fan of well-executed meta theory. I think it's very strategic.
 * A shell needs to have a violation for me to evaluate it.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at c.bre.smith@gmail.com or message me on Facebook