I spend most of my time in tab rooms these days, but when I do judge I am a traditional one who values clear and concise arguments that are backed up by solid evidence and delivered at a reasonable pace.

The fundamental goal of the debaters in round is to convince me, the judge, that their side should win, and they cannot do it if they don't speak at a conversationally persuasive pace, don't clearly articulate their positions, and don't extend their arguments and reasoning using logic and evidence.

I am a first year debater at the University of Washington for our Policy Team. I've been to four tournaments, won one, got to quarters twice, and don't want to talk about my first one (2-6 isn't THAT bad).

I'm relatively new to policy debate as a whole so I would prefer evidence driven args with strong links and big impacts. While I have some experience with K debate it's absolutely not my strong suit -- I most likely will not understand complex applications of Ks and K affs, and would prefer limited use of jargon and buzzwords. That being said, it will not affect my choice if you have won the args the page.

I judge entirely off the flow, enjoy interactive cross-ex, and put a lot of value on respect/integrity/fairness in round. Please do not use big voices to dominate small ones, let your opponents answer your questions before following up, and things like that. Tag-team A-OK. Speed is okay, just give me the tags/authors slower. 

****Updated 3/17/17

Check out this Tumblr blog: http://tinyurl.com/debatememes - its amazing and needs more followers. It has sick debate and philosophy memes.

Prep time:  Open CX- 8 minutes of prep, flashing DOES count as prep.

Novice CX- 8 minutes of prep, flashing DOES NOT count as prep. (As long as you are reasonable with the time you are taking

Out Rounds – I will likely defer to the other judges opinions

I would suggest you use the USB button it automatically saves the doc to a flash drive connected to the computer. The button is right next to the timer app.  I pay attention during the time in between cx ending and your speech starting. If you are talking to your partner at this time and it isn't obviously about something other than your speech, I will start running the timer on you. Stealing prep is a pet peeve of mine and if I notice you doing it, it will likely reflect in your speaker points. I am more lenient on this for novice, but I still notice it. TL;DR - Don’t steal prep

Tag team in CX is fine, but keep it to a minimum. A question or two doesn’t hurt, but whoever’s CX it is should be speaking for a majority of the time. I am harder on novice teams for this than open teams.

My experience: I have been doing policy debate for 5 years and am currently in my second year as a member of the University of Washington debate union. I also have experience judging all other forms of debate, but policy debate is my specialty, as it is the superior debate form.

General thoughts:

I have done some minimal amounts of research on the high school topic, and I am now starting to get used to what debates look like. I don’t know all the affs on the topic, so be sure to completely explain your aff case and how it functions. This means that at some point earlier in the debate (by the end of the 2AC) you need to make sure I understand what your case does. Also, I believe in tech over truth in debates, and unless I am convinced otherwise, arguments must be present throughout the debate round for me to vote on them out of the final rebuttals. I also believe that the only real rule in debate is that there is some kind of speech time limit and prep time limit, and that in order to receive speaker points each debater on a team should speak. Otherwise it is your responsibility as debaters to tell me how debate should function in your speeches. If I am not given a way to weigh the round, this is how I default:

Speed – I debate with people that are much faster than you. Go as fast as your little heart will let you go, but if you are not clear I will say clear once, and if you aren’t clear after that I simply will not flow what you are saying. Disclosure – yes in open, maybe in novice. In novice it depends on what round it is and if the teams want disclosure.

Cross-x – I consider cross-x to be a kind of speech. While no arguments that are made here go on the flow, you can extend arguments you make in CX into your immediate next speech. Flex prep – totally okay to ask questions, but the other team doesn’t have an obligation to answer the questions

K’s - No K is too out there for me, but what is important is that you explain the impact and alternative and link VERY well. While I am familiar with most kritiks, if you do not explain the K well enough that I can understand it, especially the alternative, then I cannot vote on it unless it goes completely dropped. Part of tech over truth applies here. While that statement is true to me, part of tech for me is a warranted explanation of why they link, why there is an impact, and how your alternative solves this. I ran D&G my senior year of high school, and in one round I ran the Mao K, so really, no K is too out there for me. K bias – I have found myself voting for “cede the political” arguments a lot, but that is less because I super believe the argument and more because often K teams don’t articulate any kind of answer to cede the political

K v K debating – these can be strange simply because you sometimes touch on issues I care a lot about, I try and keep my biases out of these debates, but please be sure to clearly explain your impact and your solvency in relation to the other kritik, giving me a clear reason to vote for you is key to getting my ballot in these debates

T – I like T debates, I am very tech over truth here. In order to win T you must be able to prove why excluding their aff and/or why your interpretation is uniquely key for debate. I prefer limits and grounds arguments, but education and other impacts can be winners. Just make sure you explain which T impact is the most important and why. I can vote for RVI’s, but it is a steep uphill climb.

Theory – I have never voted on theory as a reason to reject the team except for one time on conditionality, and I voted there because it was a dropped argument. You have a steep uphill climb to convince me that a team running one kind of argument is enough for them to lose. That said, reject the argument is something I could vote on all the time. As long as you execute theory correctly, it is totally possible to convince me. The only exception to this rule is when the other team does something especially abusive, like being in novice and not running a novice aff or not following tournament rules in open. That said, it just being a "rule" isn't enough to convince me that you should win the round because they broke the rule, you also have to prove either that having rules is good or that the rule itself is good. If you have any questions on this please ask before the round.

FW – I think framework discusses the rules of debate and is therefore an important part of debate. That said, I do have one bias. I tend to have a hard time voting for frameworks that exclude certain types of arguments from debate. That said, it is totally a winnable argument, just know that if no framework argument is made I default to all arguments are legit and I weigh all impacts against each other.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round starts!

I apologize for the inconsistent fonts, but I am not getting paid enough to fix it.

Contact information: tautek@uw.edu

Feel free to contact me in the halls after a debate or by emailing me there. I am always happy and willing to help debaters, and can also email you or your coaches specific notes on your debating if you would like, just email me and request it. Emailing judges is a good way to get better at debate, and what do you know maybe I will give you some files if they are relevant ;)

The gamble – if you make any good puns during your speech, I will give you .1 speaker points for each one. However, if you make any bad puns or over used puns, I will take away .1 speaker points. Hint: Don't use the word "pun" as a pun.