Hey guys! my name is Taylor Eddie and I will be your judge! in high school, I competed in world schools, big questions, extemp, impromptu, and lincoln Douglas as well as public forum debate plus a few more events. In my sophomore year, I qualified for nationals and was the only girl to go in extemporaneous speaking. So I love speech and debate!

I'm looking for good cross ex use that tool to your advantage! I will flow the round so make sure if you want something on my flow point it out! please make sure to be courteous and professional in the round. Thanks for putting time and effort into your debates today! I can't wait to hear them, best of luck to all of you!

Being able to fully explain your argument and use facts/reasoning to back your point is critical to winning. Speaking fast is fine, as long I can clearly understand you. If you cannot talk fast and clearly, slow down. With this, clear organization and signposting helps with being able to follow along and taking notes efficiently. Beyond this, debate however you think will help you the most. I would prefer to see you using tactics that will benefit you, rather than altering it to what you think I would like.

As for experience, this is my second year of judging debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed learning all about debate.

I am familiar with all the categories of debate and speech and would classify myself as a comms judge. I feel that excellent communication skills are critical, and in reality, the point in any style or form of debate/speech. What good is the intent of what you are trying to say if you cannot communicate your point to your audience effectively? So, making sure to be clear and articulate, effectively linking and impacting your arguments, and being respectful of your opponent(s) are all big for me. Speed is not usually an issue, as long as the technology cooperates and the clarity is there.

Other than that, I do really appreciate voters in final speeches. Tell me what you see the focal points for the round being, rather than letting me sort through and pull out whatever stood out or comes to mind. In good rounds the decisions are usually very close. Taking the time to remind me of your important arguments or the shortcomings of your opponent's responses helps ensure that I don't overlook anything in making my decision.

I debated in High school, a year in college, and worked as an assistant coach for a short time. That being said I have been out of the community for a good chunk of time and am still a bit rusty.

I am okay with speed but my rusty-ness means I am not going to be the fastest pen. If i dont hear your argument then it cant make it on my flow, if it cant make it on my flow it becomes harder to let that weigh in on my decision. If something is important, make sure you emphasize it. That doesnt mean saying the same thing over and over, it means saying it once in a clear and concise way. I am okay with you moving a bit faster through evidence, if its truly important there is a decent chance I will be asking to see it after the round anyway. I think speed can be a good tool, but if you are simply going to rely on it to outspread your opponent then I start to take issue with it.

I am pretty intentional about leaving my own feelings about anything at the door. You get to tell me whats important, you get to tell me why, and you get to tell me what matters in the debate. Absent any provided framework I default to policy maker, but only cause its the easiest way to evaluate for most debates.

I am okay with alternative frameworks for approaching debate, but it must be clear what the framework is, why it is valuable, and what makes that framework a preferable approach to our time in round. I have no issue with traditional policy making style debate, but I do think that we should be held to account for the positions we defend, and I am okay with the introduction of ethical or moral questions as a legitimate attack on a position. By and large I think you get to decide what the debate is about, You get to tell me what is important and why that is the case. I can vote on just about any impact given the right framing and the right arguments about the way we weigh impacts, but dont think I will vote just because you throw out some grand scale impact with no context or story connecting it to the debate.

I prefer depth to breadth as a general rule. I would rather see a well developed negative position with some built in flexibility to allow for some jetisoning of arguments rather than three or four different positions (counterplans, K's). You can win that having more positions is better in the theory debate, but it will be an uphill battle. Same goes for the affirmative, I would rather see 2-3 advantages with good development and strong links than 5-6 advantages that you just narrow down to 2-3 by the end of the round.

I do love a good K debate, emphasis being good. Dont read it if you arent comfortable with it, or if you feel like you cant defend it or the alternative framework necessary to evaluate it. But I am perfectly okay with bringing into the debate space the questions about how we as individuals need to relate to these larger questions of policy, action and consequence.

I hate shallow T debates. If you think you can win it I want to see extrapolation for why your definition provides the best potential debates and education, not just questions of potential abuse. My partner in high school won T 4 out of 5 rounds and it has given me an appreciation for well debated topicality.

I also place a high value on being civil to each other. You are gonna have to deal with people you dont like and disagree with for the rest of your life, learning how to do so without letting your tone of voice become all angry and confrontational is one of the most important things debate can teach us. There is a distinct difference between calling someone out for being morally or ethically problematic however, in these instances a bit of venom may be called for. But by and large in the debate space there is no reason for us not to be kind to each other, competition is good, being rude is not. I dont want to see people intentionally talking over each other to avoid real questions or conversation.

Also in my judge training they made a big deal about evidence violations. If you feel like there is a real violation occuring let me know, but by and large if evidence is truly important to the round I will be calling to see it afterwards any way. That being said if you feel like a particular bit of evidence is important to the round, whether in regards to impact calculus or framing or what have you, please flag it for me and be clear on the authors name and date so I know what to ask for after the round.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

LD

Im less experienced in this style of debate, but a lot of what I said above will apply here. I have no problem with alternative frameworks and I know that has become a lot more common since my time in the community. That being said you need to tell me what that alternate framework is, what it means for how I as a judge evaluate the debate and the topic and why it is preferable to the framework you opponent provides.

Again I don't have any real issues with speed, If i cant understand you I will let you know. But dont just turn it into a spewing contest, LD has less evidence and more argumentation then Policy and spewing through those arguments means I might lose some of the details that will be important in evaluating the debate.

PF

Not much to add here. I have more respect now for PF then I did in high school since it seems to mirror the conversations we actually have about politics and the world. I flow it a bit different then the other styles of debate, so I am less worried about the line-by-line argumentation, and more about the cohesive narrative that you are defending.

How should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

I would like debaters to adhere to the rules and regulations. I look for clear and well-thought-out speeches. As well as, their ability to articulate and communicate their speeches.

How should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttal speeches should reinforce/extend their arguments and provide voters.

How should Debaters approach evidence?

It must be clear, support their case, and be able to produce their evidence when asked to by the opponent/judge.

How would oral prompting affect your decision?

It doesn't.

How should Debaters use-value, criteria, and arguments to support a value position?

All areas should relate and support their position.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical, or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

I am open to each of these arguments because it gives the debaters freedom to think about their cases and not worry about my preferences.

Please explain your views on critical arguments.

I am looking for the critical thinking aspect here. Where the claims are supported by the evidence and logically explained in an articulate manner.

How should Debaters run on case arguments?

As long as I can follow the opponent's line-by-line arguments relating to the case that was presented it will be fine.

How should Debaters run-off case arguments?

I put a great deal of weight on this, because if the opponent can show solid reasoning that negates the case presented they will win the round. The opponent must be able to point out the flaws within the case and be able to explain the issues that the arguments cause.

Public Forum:

It is important for both sides to clearly outline the burdens of the Pro and Con sides in the round. Whichever team can outline their responsibilities (e.g. "it is the burden of the pro side to demonstrate that, on balance, renewable energy in the U.S. is superior to fossil fuels") and best uphold themvia their contentions will have the advantage. Both teams can and should eventually agree on appropriate definitions and burdens. This is not Policy; vocabulary and delivery should be accessible. This is not Lincoln-Douglas; clash should be over contentions and not "framework." Effective cross examination scores huge points.

Lincoln Douglas:

Most weight is given to Value and Criterion analysis using your contentions. Whichever side uses their Criterion to analyze and explain the superiority of their Value as it pertains to the resolution will have the advantage. Vocabulary ought to be academic and professional while avoiding jargon-fatigue. Delivery should be easy to follow and flow. Cross examination is a great chance to earn speaker points.

Policy:

Extremely low tolerance for speed of any kind. Absolute zero tolerance for critiques. I don't want to personally see your or your opponent's cards or case if I don't have to. I want you to use your rhetorical skills to deliver your case to me instead. Vocabulary ought to be suitably technical for the resolution without crossing into legal-speak territory. If the proposal/plan is highly technical, delivery and vocabulary need to make it understandable and coherent.