2024 TOC update:

I have exclusively been coaching/judging college debate for the last 2 years and have done almost zero research on this year's high school topic. Please keep this in mind if I am judging you and err on the side of over-explaining.

General things:

Please add me to the email chain.

tayjdebater@gmail.com, dukesdebate@gmail.com

Currently the Interim Director of Debate at JMU. I debated on the local Missouri Circuit as a high school student and debated for 3 years at UCF when they still had a policy team (2011-2014). I coached Berkeley Prep for 2 years while in college, coached JMU as a grad student, took some time off to finish my PhD, and have recently returned to debate.

My MA thesis was about Indigenous anti-nuclear movements and I've spent a fair amount of time researching the intersections of settler colonialism, environmental justice, and nuclear testing/uranium mining/radioactive waste storage, so I have a higher-than-average amount of topic knowledge on that end of the topic, but probably a lower-than-average amount of knowledge on the various weapons systems/tech/military strategy side of the topic.

If I seem crabby in the round, there's a high probability it's not your fault. The later in the tournament it is, the higher that probability gets - my ability to mask my crabby faces/moderate my vocal tone is inversely related to my tiredness/hunger/stress levels, so I'm probably not actually mad at you, just irritated at the world.

My decision-making process/how I approach debates:

I tend to prioritize solvency/links first when evaluating a debate. I think it's totally possible to win zero risk of an impact and I'm definitely willing to vote on presumption (but if that's your strategy I expect you to do the work to make it explicit).

I like well-explained, smart arguments. I would rather hear you explain something well with good examples than read a ton of cards that all say the same thing. I'll stick as close to the flow as I can and judge the debate based on how the debaters tell me to judge.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact. Dropped things only matter if you make them matter. It is your job to frame the voting issues in the round for me and make it clear how I should weigh arguments against one another.

I prefer to minimize how much evidence I read after the round. I expect you to do more than shadow extend things. If all I have on my flow by the end of the round is an author name, I'm not hunting that card down to figure out the warrant for you.

I flow on paper and line things up on my flow. Please give me sufficient pen time on analytics, signpost, and keep things organized. If I am unable to get something on my flow because you did not do these things or because you were not clear, that's a you problem. I will always do my best to get everything written down, even if it's in the wrong place, but it will make it more difficult for me to meaningfully weigh arguments against each other, which means longer decision times and probably worse decisions.

I don't flow CX, but will pay attention throughout CX and jot down notes if something particularly important/eye-catching seems to be happening. If something occurs in CX that you want me to vote on, it needs to make it into a speech.

I do not follow the speech doc while flowing. I may have the document open and refer to specific cards if they are referenced in CX, but I won't be flowing from your doc or reading your evidence along with you during your speech.

Stylistic things

Prep ends when you hit send on the email, and unless you're planning to ask questions about the extra cards they added, please don't make us wait to start CX until they send them. I will keep as close to a running clock as possible - we all have a role to play in making sure the tournament runs on time, and we all want a chance to get a halfway decent amount of sleep.

If you play music/videos/etc. while you are speaking, please ensure the volume of the music is substantially quieter than the volume of your voice. I have some auditory processing issues that make it extremely difficult for me to understand people's voices while there is any kind of background noise. I want to flow and evaluate your arguments, but I can't do that if I can't process your words.

I vote on things that happened during the debate. I do not vote on things that the other team (or their friends, coaches, squad-mates, acquaintances, enemies, etc.) did during pre-round prep, in the hallway yesterday, at the bar last tournament, this morning at the hotel, etc. I will not attempt to adjudicate interpersonal events I was not present to witness.

I generally think debate is good. That doesn't mean I think debate is perfect. There are absolutely valid critiques of debate that should be addressed, and I think there is value in pushing this activity to be the best version of itself. However, if your arguments rely on the assumption that debate is irredeemably bad, I'm probably not the right judge for you. I think you need a model of debate that you think is desirable and achievable within the confines of an activity in which two sides argue with each other and at the end one side is selected as a winner.

Most debaters would benefit from slowing down by about 20%. Not because speed is bad, but because few debaters are actually clear enough for the average judge to get a good flow when you're going at 100% speed.

Examples, examples, examples. If you take one thing away from my paradigm, it is that I like to be given examples. What does your theory look like in practice? What kinds of plans are included/excluded under your T interp? Etc.

Please do not assume I know what your acronyms/etc mean. If I don't know what the bill/organization/event you're talking about is, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to evaluate your link story.

I will open the speech doc, but will not necessarily follow along. I may look at a card if something spicy happens in CX, if you're referring to a card in a rebuttal, etc., but I do not look at or flow from the doc. If you are not clear enough for me to flow without looking at your doc, I will not fill in gaps from the doc.

Ethics Violations:

I take ethics challenges extremely seriously. I consider them to be an accusation of academic dishonesty equivalent to plagiarism. Just like any other instance of academic dishonesty, ethics violations can have serious consequences for debaters and programs, and the perception that our activity condones such behavior could have serious repercussions for the survival of our activity. If an ethics challenge is issued, that is the end of the debate. If the tournament invitation includes a protocol for handling ethics challenges, I will follow the tournament rules. If the tournament does not have a clear set of protocols, I will clarify that an ethics challenge has been issued, make a determination in regards to the challenge, and either vote for the team issuing the challenge or for the team against whom the challenge was issued.

If you become aware of something you think might be an ethics violation prior to the round (you notice a card that is cited incorrectly, etc.) I would STRONGLY PREFER that you reach out to the team/their coach before the round and let them know/give them a chance to fix it, rather than initiating an ethics challenge in the round.

Because of the seriousness of ethics challenges, I consider it the responsibility of the team issuing the challenge to 1) prove that a violation (defined as card clipping or intentionally manufacturing or mis-representing the source or content of evidence) occurred and 2) provide a reasonable degree of evidence that the violation was intentional or malicious (i.e., I do not consider someone mumbling/stumbling over words because they were tired to be the same thing as intentional card clipping, and do not think it should have the same consequences).

That said, I understand that proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is an impossible standard. I do not expect you to prove exactly what was going on in the other team's mind when the event happened. However, you should be able to show that the other team reasonably should have known that the cite was wrong, the text was missing, etc. and chose to engage in the behavior knowing that it was unethical. I do not think we should be accusing people of academic dishonesty as a strategy to win a round. I also do not think we should be engaging in cheating behavior to win rounds. No one debater's win record is worth more than the continued health of our activity as a whole. If we would like this activity to continue, we must have ethical standards, including not cheating and not frivolously accusing people of cheating.

Speaker Points:

These are relative for each division (e.g., what I consider an "average performance" that gets a 28.3 in novice will be different from what I think of as an "average performance" that gets a 28.3 in varsity)

29.5-30: You should be in the top 3 speakers at the tournament. I can count the number of times I have given above a 29.5 on one hand.

29-29.5: This was an incredible performance. I expect you to be in late out rounds at this tournament and/or to win a speaker award

28.6-29: This was an above-average performance. Something about your speeches/CXs impressed me. Keep this up and I anticipate you will clear.

28.3-28.6: This was an average performance. You had some good moments, but nothing incredible happened.

27.5-28.3: I like your attitude. Some rough things happened during this round. Maybe you dropped an off-case position, only read blocks, were extremely unclear, etc.

Below a 27.5: Something majorly wrong has happened in this round. You failed to participate meaingfully in the debate and/or failed to demonstrate basic human decency toward other people in the room.

Case debate

Yes, please. I love a good case debate, particularly when it is grounded in specific and detailed analysis of what the aff claims their plan/advocadcy does vs what their cards actually say.

T/Framework

I judge a lot of these debates, and enjoy them. Ultimately, these are debates about what we think debate should be. Because of that, I think you need a clear description of what your model of debate looks like, what it includes/excludes, and why that's a good thing.

Debate is an educational activity unlike any other, and I think that's a good thing. I generally default to believing education is the most important impact in these debates, but can absolutely be persuaded that something else (i.e. fairness) should come first.

Despite what I just said, I think the competitive nature of debate is also good, which means there should probably be at least some parameters for what the activity looks like that allows both sides a reasonable shot at winning. What that looks like is up for debate.

I prefer affirmatives with some clear tie to the resolution. That doesn't mean you have to fiat a topical plan text, but I do think it means debate is better when the affirmative is at least in the direction of the topic and/or about the same general content as the resolution.

Your TVA needs to actually access whatever offense the aff is leveraging against T. Lots of TVAs fail this test. I think a good TVA can be super important, but a bad TVA is typically a complete waste of time.

Against policy affs, I think giving me specific examples of ground you lost (not just "we lost some DAs" but "We specifically couldn't read these 2 core DAs and this core CP") is important. If you can show in-round abuse via spiking out of links, that would be ideal.

Please give me pen time.

Counterplans

If your counterplan has a bajillion hyper-specific planks, you need to slow down enough for me to at least get an idea of what they are in the 1NC.

I like counterplans that are specific, well-researched, and have a clear basis in a solvency advocate. I don't love counterplans that have a million planks that are not clearly explained until the block or the 2nr and are not grounded in some kind of solvency advocate/literature.

You should be able to clearly articulate how the implementation of the CP works. I think most aff teams should spend more time articulating solvency deficits based on the negative team's inability or refusal to articulate what the implementation process of the CP looks like in comparison to the aff.

I think conditionality is good, within reason. I think PICs are good, within reason. I think multi-actor fiat, counterplans with a zillion planks, etc. are probably not great, but generally are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I can be convinced that any of the above opinions are wrong, given the right arguments by either team.

Disads

Please make clear what your acronyms mean, what your specific link story is, etc. early in the debate. I don't spend a ton of time judging giant big-stick policy rounds, so I'm probably not as versed in this literature as you. Please don't make me spend 20 minutes after the debate trying to decipher your impact scenario. Give me a very clear explanation in the 2nc/1nr overview.

Kritiks

I think the aff gets to weigh their impacts if they prove that the ideas underwriting those impacts are good and accurate. I think the neg gets links to the aff's reps/discourse/etc. I think the negative needs to win a specific link to the aff (i.e., not just to the status quo) and also either that the links are sufficient to undermine the aff's internal links (i.e. I should vote on presumption) or that the alternative can resolve the links. I don't think any of those statements are particularly controversial.

The role of the ballot is to decide who did the better debating in this round. Always. How I should evaluate what counts as "better debating" is up for debate, but I am pretty unsympathetic to obviously self-serving roles of the ballot.

If you say the phrase "vote aff to vote neg" or "vote neg to vote aff" in a round I am judging, you owe me $10.

Debate Experience:

High School Policy - 3 Years

College Policy (City University of New York)- 4 Years

Cumulative Judging/Coaching (CUNY, NYU, NYCUDL, Bronx Science, Rutgers University) - ~ 5 years

GSU 2017 Edition

I'm coming out from a 2 year debate hiatus and an intensive video production/broadcasting program. I haven't been up to date with the latest literature on the debate circuit so don't assume I know your Jackson evidence is hot fire without any warrants. I also may not be your top pick for your fast and clever Consult CP debate because my hands are not fast enough to send that message to my brain. This might change with more judging throughout the season but I'll let you know.

On to the general stuff...

I evaluate the debate based on who did the best debating. That's usually done through my flow unless you create a framework for me to do otherwise. Run what argument fits your style and do it to the best of your ability. Args of the meme variety are on the table but you would have to do a lot, and I mean a lot of work, for me to vote on them. Please also note that I won't be down for your oppression good, rights Malthus type of args.

Make sure you can jump / e-mail chain files in less than 5 minutes (not for me but for the tournament staff).I will do my best to keep my rhetoric gender neutral. As a generalrule, I tend to stick to gender-neutral pronouns however I will do my due diligence to be familiar with your preferred pronouns and you have every right to correct me on the spot if I fail to do so.

Case Debate

Solid. I'm not the best public policy analyst on the circuit to know some of the nuances of your args so this would require some explanation of what these abbreviations mean and what do they look like in the context of the debate.

Politics/Disads

I'll listen/flow them. I vote on them every now and then.

CPs

As I mentioned above I'm not the best when it comes to CP theory. My general opinions on CPs, in general, is neutral so if you need someone with a firm stance on whether a consult CP is legit or not then you should defer to a different critic.

The K

They're ok.

Framework/T

Debatable.

READ THIS IF YOU JUST WANT THE BASICS

(for example, the round is about to start and/or you need to prep)

 

I will try to keep this uncharacteristically simple and straightforward relative to my normal explanatory style. I love all argumentative styles, strategies and preferences. Reveal at this opportunity to push yourself into unknown territory or defend something you think most would not accept. My mind is an engine, my heart openly accepting – let us learn and experiment together.

 

I default to offense-defense out of convenience most times.

 

I flow on paper; ‘straight down’ without following arguments next to what they are responding to. Each advantage/off-case gets a separate sheet unless otherwise specified by a team. I like it when teams notify how many pages they predict I will need for a given speech.

 

Clarity trumps strategic speed. Prefer simplistic truth over tactical obfuscation.

 

I am very sensitive to contradictions and/or tensions in argumentations, I highly suggest you avoid such (not that I will punish you on face for doing so) because I will be very open to the other team’s strategic use (and arguments against) your mistake. My interpretation of conditionality is that is allows for multiple normative statements (“X should be …”) in even-if logic format; not descriptive truth claims (“X is …”) in even-if format.

 

Provide mechanistic explanations for why action/events cause other ones, referencing or using empirics (or an empirical method) is much more persuasive to me than more other ways of explaining.

 

I am still at the point where I read most of the non-highlighted portion of evidence to understand context and more depth. So front load your speeches with analysis, not card reading. Explain to me the nuances before I read them later on.

 

Impact analysis (meaning explanation of why an implication is important) is second only to comparative analysis (why two or more things are different) in my mindset. You must have both to have a holistic and coherent position that I feel comfortable voting for.

I like theory debates (because they are value debates), but I do not like excessively fast block reading. If you want to “go for” or “bank” on theory, excellent, but please use an overview style (with embedded clash) prior to a slowed down line-by-line refutation.

 

I LOVE debate experimentation, and if both teams agree to an alteration of engagement terms prior to the round (I need to witness the verbal contract), then I am all for it. The threshold to this is anything that would prevent tournament operations (sorry, no 6 hour rounds). But commentary between speeches or signal during your efforts is well within what I will do to help you.

 

I think I care more about debater’s feelings and emotional states more than the average coach who judged me; confident assertions are good, belittlement or seeming cruelty to another will make me dislike you. Please do not do this. Note that this is about argument presentation, not content.

 

I am very relaxed about flashing and time restrictions, but trust me… you want me to have as much time for an RFD as possible, I am already going to be the last ballot submitted regardless.

I will use the following speaker point scale unless the tournament establishes another:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xiQ6LxRv_7AAMs8YXM6S-jkN1KTSXvXIo5uxAzl6AFQ/edit

READ THIS ADDITIONAL PORTION IF DOING PREFS OR IF WANTING MORE INSIGHT

Note that I have very little experience judging, so my philosophy, traits, and methods are as much under construction as your own.

A guiding principle I use at the top of most debates is: "What is the difference between the two, what is the significance of that difference?" Using this as a method of comparison or reference in your overviews will help guide me in understanding what order of interpretive operations I should be deploying for your arguments, as well as what you value most of what you say.

 

Strategies based on this ideal, like PICs, are VERY endorsed by me.

Because a few ask for it; my background in debate is boarding on absurdly diverse. I have been every speaker position, utilized every conceivable style, advanced a vast range of arguments that have enabled me to compare and contrast the interconnectivity of each. For example, I enjoy extremely meta-critical debate, but I also am endeared by stock issues debates. However, both of these are eclipsed by my fondness for debates about these frameworks themselves (and their points of clash and/or overlap).

I endeavor to be the type of judge I rarely had: I want to emulate Jarod Atchison’s and Hester’s style of analysis and judging. I am told I explain things like JT Taylor.

But! My explanations can be very dense, please interject if you have trouble understand my particular style of reasoning.

I reward strategic behavior more in speaker points than I do stylistic (if we have passed a certain threshold of performance).

Cards are not required; arguments are (purely interpretative presentations confuse me, and I may make a mess of things in the confusion).

I believe in “zero risk” assessment, pure defense is fine (but that is a high burden). IF won I will look for offense in a different section to decide superiority.

Presumption does not exist for me unless you advance a specific interpretation of it.

The previous statement may be true for many theory interpretations, ALWAYS advance one.

Not sure how I feel about multiple interps on a single flow, I think it goes against my condo perspective.

Drops are ‘concessions’ mainly out of pragmatism, cross applications for explaining how your other arguments still interact with the ‘concession’ is fine.

1ar case analysis does not have to reference everything in order to “keep it in the debate”, embedded clash will suffice. Note: this does not apply to off-case.

Do what makes you feel comfortable – as long as it does not come at another’s expense – whether you do not like wearing shoes (or love debating in full business attire), do what you want.

Topic Knowledge: I did a bulk of the PAS research for my team. If you want to have these debates, pref me higher.

Critical knowledge: my specialty is in Agambenian research, as well as Science and Technology studies. If you want to argue about either of these, pref me higher.

Debater knowledge: my professional background is in engineering, if you want to debate about such (or just have someone to talk to), get in contact with me. And of course… pref me higher.

I can flow in two styles, the first where I look for every point of improvement and make a note of that (lowers by depth of decision calculus, but allows me to give everyone a LOT of advice on many areas they could improve). OR I can focus on position interaction and empathize development and explanation of my analysis of the final set of arguments from the rebuttals. The second option is my default, but the first is my preferred for novice/JV. However, both teams must agree to a change in my flowing style for me to do so.

I am so thankful for open source and the movement supporting it. Thank you to those who engage in it.

I will never be upset at you for over-explaining your arguments (though I will tell you if you are inefficiently conveying information); talk to me like I am five if you think that helps your presentation.

“Perm: do the aff” means nothing to me, instead of saying it, use the explanation of it you were going to give anyway and just substitute that for the initial phrase.

I use the 1AR as a lens to evaluate the 2AR, as well as to measure what was dropped, under/over covered, etc. (in summary: 1AR argument selection is critical)

In that line of thought, I am serious about “not considering” (aka striking) arguments when they have been marked as ‘new’ and the other team fails to provide an adequate defense of their advancement. So do not shy away from theory on this issue.

I am unsure right now how much leniency I want to give negatives to bring up “new arguments” in the 1NR, for now let us go with the threshold that they should be responsive to an argument forward in the 2ac rather than the 1ac. (for example, does the argument link to the 1ac plan/advocacy or the 2ac explanation of it or another argument?)

I will spilt speaker point rankings at will, (1X can be above their 2X) and the winning team does not necessarily get higher speaker points (though I think low point wins will be uncommon).

I like to vote on stories, a simple explanation that ties arguments together in a progression (think causal linkages).

I seem to naturally want to give more RFD time to the losing team, which seems agreeable considering what the other team gets out the complex exchange.

Despite my love of tactics, deferral strats annoy me at the moment. I suggest you avoid them, and if confronted with them. I am receptive to arguments against their deployment.

 

Mine is "The paradigm of paradigms..."

 

 

History:

I have 3 years of college debate experience and mostly debated traditional policy arguments.

General:

I really like college policy debate. I like being exposed to new arguments and points of view. I like the logical breakdown of arguments with great analysis as to how the arguments relate to each other.  I think an educational and fair debate with a lot of clash is the most important contribution of this community.

I’m about as tabula rasa as they come when judging. I’m very open to any style of debate so long as its explained very clearly to me what I am voting on.

I do enjoy humor and wit and will probably reward it. Don’t try too hard. Be nice. Not saying you have to hold hands, but whatever you do don’t yell at each other. I will reward great evidence comparison.

CPs:

It’s legitimate until the other team calls you out and outdebates you on it. Although, you should probably have some external NBs. Also consult CPs suck.

Ks:

I didn’t have as much time to go deep into as much literature as I would’ve liked, but I am more than happy to vote on these args. Just make sure I understand the thesis of the arg and how it interacts with the aff (impact, link, alt analysis). The more specificity the better, including aff responses. The aff calling you out on performative contradictions might be persuasive if they debate it well.

There’s a possibility that I won’t vote on the Cap K if you own a Mac.

DA:

Probably spend a little more time on the link. Make sure they are specific, but I will vote for a generic DA if the characterization is good. Impact calc is VERY important.

Case:

Favorite part of the debate. It’s (usually) where I learn the most if it’s done well.

Theory:

Everything is up for debate, just make sure you outline in round abuse. I’m probably not going to flow everything if you just shotgun a theory block.

Non-traditional debate/Performances:

 

Again, I’m very tabula rasa. My enjoyment and education will diminish significantly if you can’t relate what you’re saying to the topic. I need a good role of the ballot explanation for these debates. For framework responses, please be specific to the argument at hand.

Background - 4 years at Wake Forest University (2008-2012), 2A for all 4 years with occasional exceptions.I've been an assistant coach at the University of Central Florida since August 2013. I've debated and coached across the ideological spectrum.

I think I agree with everything in Sean Ridley's paradigm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aff - Do what you want. Defend what you do and why, but you already know that.

T/FW - I wasn't great debating them, and I'm probably the same way judging them. I'll give it my best effort, but just know that it might be a bit of a crapshoot.

K - Specificity is generally what wins the day for either side. Give clear, concrete examples. Cite something that happened in THIS round. The less jargon the better. I will happily listen to any K (and any K answer) that meets these criteria.

CP - Please don't read some contrived CP that's based around one out of context card or that relies on more weird theory than substantive argument to be competitive.

Theory - You'll need a story for abuse in this round if you want me to do more than just reject the argument. That is NOT to say that you can't win common practices in debate warrant a loss. I'll vote on condo or consult bad or whatever if you can present a good story why. Contextualize it. What happened this round = good. "Unique time and strategy skew, it's a voter" = bad. And for God's sake, slow down. I have no idea how some judges can flow theory debates at full speed.

Clash of Civ - Do not just talk about your side in the rebuttals. Do not just use your terminology. Talk about what they said, use the key words they use, explain how it interacts with your take on things, etc. If you do more work to bridge the gaps between their position and yours, you'll get to put your own spin on what I inevitably end doing in the post-round.

In round etiquette - Be assertive, even abrasive, but don't break basic norms of decency.

Ethics challenges - Better have some convincing evidence.