Put me on the Email Chain- debate.taylor@gmail.com

TLDR: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Probably do not pref me highly if you are a primarily K team, it's not that I will not judge the round just that you are much better off getting the decision you want in a LARP debate, because that is what I primarily did in high school. But please do what you are most comfortable with.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.

Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read on it" is not an argument by itself you need to explain this. I am probably also more okay than most judges with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are particularly convincing.

Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. Of course you need a net-benefit to the counter-plan in order to win it whether it is internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.

Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously the most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Theory: Fine go for it if you want. In highschool I think (not that this is a good thing) I only went for theory one time, but I do understand the debate. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's probably good in most cases. Also you should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you are remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams who's links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine.

I have nearly two decades of judging experience, primarily on the UIL policy circuit. I am a policy maker judge and will look for the most pragmatic and real world situations in round.

It is the role of the negative to provide sufficient clash, and I'll vote on most issues in the round if you are believable and persuasive. Feel free to run any argument and make sure you provide impacts to weigh on the ballot.

I am okay with speed in the round but will signal to you if I am unable to flow. However, I am ultimately not concerned with the number of arguments in the round. I am looking for quality, depth of understanding, and educational clash. Make sure both teams are listening to arguments being ran in the round and respond accordingly.

Above all, be respectful to each other.

(whitehouse'22; UT'26 - debate/IEs 4yrs)

she/her ; (lay-lah-knee)

leilani.celeste03@gmail.com

pref speech drop.

policy

policy debate was my main event in high school, i've been in your shoes before! trust me, i will try my best not to screw you over.

i would describe myself as a tab judge with a bias toward gamechanger debates. this means, run whatever you'd like! just know i love good offense v. defense debate. DO NOT BE AFRAID OF CLASH. above all, be polite to your opponents. (more on this at the bottom.)

speech- first and foremost, debate is a communication event. i will try my best to listen to spreading, however, if it becomes unintelligible i will put my pen down (and you will notice it). speaks will be awarded to those who enunciate, have little verbal clutter, and demonstrate professionalism. organization is key. i will be very strict on this.

t- i love a good T debate! great opportunity to demonstrate strategic skills and utilize theory args. articulate violation/standards/voters clearly. do not expect me to flow for arbitrary and/or overlimiting interps. i default reasonability.

k/fw- i am a huge fan of theory args. i believe they make debate extremely interesting and will listen intently. that being said, BE FAMILIAR WITH THE K LITERATURE. if you decide to run a heidegger/cap/psychoanalysis/etc. k, understand what you are reading and be able to coherently articulate the reason to vote on it. if you're going to use buzzwords - define them & tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest. if you run a k aff, good luck.

disads/cp's- these are fine, however if you choose to run 3+ and then claim to "lose neg ground" in the debate, it will affect my RFD and i will call it out. da's (and k's) should serve as obvious net benefits to your cp. PLEASE IMPACT CALC. impact framing is key. structural violence v. nuclear war doesn't matter if i am not told which is worse. i will default to my own interp if this is not done (it should be). perms are great as long as you understand what you are talking about.

misc- hate redundancy, do not repeat yourself over and over. signpost clearly. open cx is fine if the host allows it. don't care where you sit. neg- i firmly believe that progressive cx has allowed too much leeway for kicking args- DO NOT ABUSE THIS. i will call it out in my RFD. last speeches >>>. these will make or break the round for me. do NOT allow your energy to drop, even if you feel as though you're losing! keep me interested! debate is supposed to be "fun". allow your passion to spill over in your speeches. GET ON THAT SOAP BOX!! (this applies to all events.)

ld

i debated ld a few times (and won each time). however, i am in no way familiar with all of the ld jargon. remember, i am a policy debater / interp'r.

don't spread.

okay with whatever. love clash! don't be rude. keep me interested.

thoroughly explain your values and criterion. it will take a lot to persuade me on broad values (such as life or justice) without just and clearly articulated criterion/warrants.

IE's

three things: passion. energy. clarity.

this is your chance to express yourself! show me who you are, why you're here! do not just read the script, give me emotion! pazazz! dramatics! & being louder does not mean better.

extemp- try your hardest to reduce verbal clutter. this is a communication event, just talk to me! each move you physically make should have a purpose; no swaying! breathe, you got this!

general judging

i will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. be respectful? not that difficult. we are here to offer a safe and diverse place for intellectual discourse and healthy conversation. i truly admire the culture speech and debate has fostered, so uphold that. be open minded and considerate of those around you. any disrespect or unnecessary aggression will automatically lose you the round.

any further questions/clarification, feel free to contact me anytime! :)

I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.

Tab judge (I.E. I will not connect the dots for you). Any and all arguments need to have offense behind them for them to be counted Stock issues, DA's, CP's, are all good. Theory and K's I will listen to and weigh as long as they are not being run just to run. This is a speaking event and not a speed reading event is my take on speed in a debate round. Meaning, if it is not on my flow, it does not exist in the debate. I do not like new off-case arguments in the 2 NC unless the affirmative opens the door.

Important things in no important order. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1. I did CX for 4 years, I went to state UIL for 4 years, and I competed in NSDA qualifiers for CX. I was an octafinalist my sophomore year. I now do parliamentary debate in college, currently as a sophomore.

2. When it comes to breadth or depth, I think the debate needs to shift. Neg should throw a breadth of arguments at aff, but then collapse, either in the block or after the block, and give an in-depth reason to vote neg. This isn't to say I won't vote a one-off K or anything like that, run what you need to win.

3. Tech over truth.

4. I'm a tab judge. I will vote on anything and want to hear all kinds of arguments made.

5. I'm going to rate all of the arguments on a scale of 1-5, 1 being I hate, 5 being I love.

Theory is 5 because I love theory and if there's a legitimate reason to run it (condo bad, pics bad, k bad, etc.), it's a great way to have a meta debate, which can alleviate burnout on a single topic. On theory, standards are key, as well as voters. Your theory doesn't mean anything if you don't say why it means something.

Kritiks are a 5 because I love kritiks of all kinds and think they are a great way to reshape the debate. I will say that, for the purpose of the debate, I am not familiar with your K literature, even if it's cap. Explain it to me so that I understand what you're critiquing, why it's bad, and what the alt does as well as how it solves. Framing also makes K debates easier to weigh.

Topicality is 3 because I will vote on it and default to competing interpretations, but that doesn't mean I won't listen to reasonability. If aff can say why reasonability is good and then can win the we meet, the rest of the T is meaningless because aff meets. Don't lose that and I like T as much as theory. Also, you need voters. "Reasons to prefer" is not the equivalent of standards and voters.

Counterplans are a 4 because they're great, but I just never ran them as a debater. Go for it, I think they're fun arguments, but obviously have net benefits, either through DA's or K's.

K Affs are a 4 because they are an interesting way to change aff's job, but you need to give me a good reason to either reject the topic or at least reject the actor, idea, etc. On T, simply saying it's not a voter won't protect your K aff if you can't tell me why you being topical is less important than your advocacy.

Lastly, DA is 3 because it's a necessary part of debate, but needs more than uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. Either you need to turn the case, make the aff not solve (so there's no affirmative offense), use impact framing to make your impacts weigh more than aff, or couple it with a CP. Impact framing is key, because dehumanization versus nuclear extinction doesn't matter if I'm not told which one is worse. Absent any evaluation, I have to intervene to determine which I think is worse.

6. On flowing, I'm adequately good. I think speed is bad for debate personally, and it will show in your speaker points if you use high speed through analysis and analytics, but when it comes to cards, give me an easy tagline, and go as fast as you want. If you need specific warrants in cards flowed, slow down for those as well.

7. The job of the affirmative is to propose a plan or advocacy that either proves the topic or frames why rejecting it is important is better than the status quo/neg cp or alt. The job of the neg is to prove the status quo/cp or alt is better than the affirmative advocacy or plan. This applies to theory and T in the sense that if you prove how they access the topic or utilize an argument is worse for the debate space going forward, it still weighs.

8. I'd prefer to be on the email chain if one is created, but I'm not going to ask y'all to add me.

If you have any questions about the paradigm, ask me in the room.

Policy -

I would consider myself a traditional stock issues judge. I understand that debate is evolving and changing and I try to consider myself open to new ideas and approaches. Kritiques and new approaches to framework are not my favorite arguments, but I will listen to them and try to evaluate the round based on what I am hearing and not just my own preferences. I value that debaters are professional and courteous to each other. It is acceptable to have command of the CX period, but another to be rude. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I will listen to K and CP's but I prefer traditional arguments such as T's, D/A's, solvency, inherency, harms, etc. . I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC. (This is not required but it makes the round more interesting so speeches do not become repetitive.) I do not mind speed as long as I can flow it. Please provide a roadmap before speaking but be aware that I will time them. I will be the official timekeeper, but it is helpful, especially in the virtual platform where I am muted, that debaters also time themselves.

I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to flash. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

I am relatively new to critical debate. I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

I am Dyspolity@gmail on email chains.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Guyer in Denton. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is not one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you ae functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. Your language choices should reflect scholarship.