Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

Green Valley High School '14

University of Nevada Las Vegas; Cornell University '18

I've debated for four years in high school (a brief stint in LD before 3 years in policy) and 2 years in college. I also spent some time as an assistant coach for Green Valley HS. 

Updates  

I've felt my ideological beliefs slightly shift. To summarize this pedagogical transition, I offer the following analogy: If two teams of equal caliber are debating where the affirmative defends a straight-up 1AC against a Kritikal 2NR, I probably see myself voting Affirmative 53-47. Similarly, if two equally skilled teams have a Framework/T debate then I see myself going Negative 53-47. 

Not Much Time? Read this!

Just do you and don’t worry. I will listen to and evaluate whatever you may want to read. I've gone for arguments across the argumentative spectrum on both the affirmative and the negative. I'll be happy to answer any specific questions in person or by email. 

Miscellaneous

If there is an email chain, I would like to be a part of it, my email is Bhatti.DebateJudging@gmail.com 

Debate is first and foremost a communication activity between the speaker and the judge. As your judge changes from round to round I believe it is necessary to adapt your argumentative style to resonate with the judge. A lapse in effective communication can potentially decide the round. That may mean include from slowing down, staying clear, remaining organized, or ensuring your explanations are top notch. 

I generally default to tech over truth. This means that I also evaluate the debate from a very line-by-line perspective. It will be very hard to convince me that I should adopt a different lens for evaluating the debate.

I will strike new arguments from my flow if they are explicitly pointed out and deligitimized.

I’m a fan of unconventional deployment of the spin zone.

No prep for flashing unless, during the round, things become out of hand.

Aggressive argumentation is good; being rude is not.

I’ll kick the CP or the Alt for you only if explicitly told to do so; cover all your bases.

Evidence comparison is paramount to good debates.

I have a low threshold for dismissing your silly argumets (ex. Justice League CP) and a high threshold for voting on them.

No Buenos

Accusations of clipping evidence are serious. If you have clipped, or if you have incorrectly accused someone of clipping, you will receive 0 speaker points and a loss. Don't make me adjudicate this and if you do, make sure you have proof.

Stealing prep-time isn’t cool, the game is fun because you’re supposed to be under a time crunch while competing. Adrenaline is where it’s at.

Specifics! 

Disadvantages

Probably the best part about debate. Topic specific and case specific DA’s make for the best debates, but politics is cool too. Specific and unique link analysis is definitely preferred over your core generics. Impact calculus, turns case, and other framing issue arguments can swing debates dramatically. Make my job easy and compartmentalize areas on the flow well. 

Counterplans

The second best part about debate. There is probably some fine line between reading as many (including planks) as you want and making it impossibly hard for the affirmative but being negative is hard. I guess my general rule would be the more specific your counterplans are in relation to the aff the less I am inclined to care about conditionality. If there is a scenario where a 2AC undercovers a not-so-specific 1NC that may be excessive in terms of number of counterplans, I'm sympathetic to a 1AR's recovery.

Solvency advocates are bueno but even better are counterplans with solvency advocates written by affirmative authors. Net benefits need to be clearly articulated. PIC’s are strategic and inevitable but if they result in the entirety of the 1AC then you’re in some dangerous theoretical waters. Advantage CP's are poppin'.

With regards to competition: Consult and delay CP’s aren’t the most persuasive. Agent and process CP's are slightly more acceptable. With these arguments, the more specific your solvency advocate the better. Be prepared to theoretically defend them well and clearly. 

Case

I love in-depth and heavily researched case debates. Analytical arguments can suffice in taking out whackier advantages. I'm willing to vote on 0% risk of the affirmative if the work is put in - BUT you'll have to put up a conclusive and thoroughly convincing effort. Point out the flaws and inconsistencies in the 1AC's evidence and internal link chains as early as possible. You can't always be specific and I get that, this is where top notch comparison and utilizing the spin zone come in. If you pressure the affirmative significantly on case in the block, I'm not very sympathetic to a 1AR that brushes over the case debate. 

Theory

More than anywhere else in the debate, it is imperative that you slow down during the theory debate. Besides egregious examples of conditionality, most theory arguments hardly ever warrant rejecting the team. I will, however, evaluate warranted analysis that is specific and thorough. That being said, conditionality is generally cool (being negative is hard), but the more conditional positions you read, the less cool it becomes. Shady and tricky theory can be fun and strategic; obviously, do not default to these arguments as your round winners before the debate starts. If you ARE banking on these arguments for whatever reason, it is your best interest to do whatever you can to make sure I flow everything and have a clear picture of what's happening (i.e. slow down, be clear, be concise). 

Topicality

Technical decisions and miscues most heavily impact my decision in T debates. That being said, it is of the highest significance that both sides are clear in their articulation of framing their meta-level impact issues on what is evaluated first (for example, why I should evaluate education over fairness OR why your definitions/interpretations should be the lens through which I frame the round). When going for Topicality, you should make my job easier by having a very structured and highly organized 2NR. 

Framework

Meta-level framing issues that are better fleshed out by a team will probably be the ones deciding the debate. Make sure your impact claims interact with your opponents. Non-state based framework and T arguments are highly strategic. Fairness IS an impact in and of itself (structural and procedural fairness are different). I probably think debate is primarily a game that has added benefits. I can definitely be convinced otherwise but I advise you to be very prepared to respond to the procedural impact level claims that result from debate being viewed as a game. Explanations of why dialogue, agonism, ideas-testing, skill, etc. turn case, prevent solvency, or come first in my decision calclus are absolutely necessary for winning the debate. When going for institution-style framework, be prepared with specific examples and evidence that prove institutions can be used to resolve the impact claims of the affirmative.

Kritiks

A large portion of my career has consisted of Kritikal debate. That being said let me say this:  

Different authors discuss and use similar terminology in different ways. Do not expect me to already know your buzzwords, fundamental critical theory, or other shenanigans. This does NOT mean that you shouldn’t read your argument if you think it will win you the round - it simply means you might need to go the extra mile of giving a more thorough explanation of what your buzzwords mean to ensure everything connects. Just remember I evaluate your argumentation and explanation – not my own prior knowledge of your argument. 

I honestly don't mind 'generic' K's, but the more specific they are the better position you'll be in. I'm fine voting on just the framework portion of the K. Thorough link analysis is your friend. 

Kritikal Affirmatives

I respect the decision of reading an affirmative that doesn’t affirm the topic or defend a plan text. I often read these types of affirmatives and understand their strategic benefit. I do believe that the affirmative should have something to do with the resolution and annual topic. If your affirmative is substantially outside the scope of the topic you have an uphill battle ahead of you. If your affirmative has largely nothing to do with the topic, regardless of the importance of the subject matter, I am not the judge for you.

Speaker Points

I probably give higher speaker points than the average judge. I evaluate strategy and execution first and foremost. This does, however, include clarity, ability to coherently explain your position, and argument structure. 

Your jokes will be evaluated on the following scale:

[+.2] Incorporation of well explained, specific stories that I might know about

[+.1] General references about people I went to school/debated/might associate with

[+.1] Jokes about me

[+.1] Witty remarks that reflect intelligence

[+.1] {Friendly} Quips directed towards your partner or opponents

Additionally, if you happen to mention certain mystery subjects, you will not only net yourself some extra speaker points, but also a coveted, eternal spot on this page with the date and tournament corresponding to the accomplishment.

[+.1] Huskies - November 1, 2014, Round 5, The Meadows Tournament, Elliot Kovnick and Jaden Lessnick

[+.1] ???

[+.1] ???

[+.1] ???

[+.1] ???

*Bonus points cap at a combined maximum of [+.3] and may deviate [-.1] based on your jokes.

Time Debating:4 years in High School on the local Las Vegas circuit and some on the national circuit. 3 years of LD and 1 year of Varsity Policy.
School Debated for:Canyon Springs High School
Number of Years Judging: 16 years as a competitor, judge, and part-time coach

I am pastor in Tucson, AZ. As it pertains to debate, I am a debate coach that highly values debate fundamentals and the execution of them. I spent about six years doing military intelligence for the Navy, so I am well versed in foreign policy and it’s effect in the world. Lastly, I was studying to become a lawyer before becoming a pastor, so I highly value evidence and sound argumentation. With that said, I value sound argument over fundamentals. I care more that you took the time to dive deep into the “why” of an argument than if you ran a counterplan correctly. I am here to judge how you critically think and not necessarily how you execute the round, though the fundamentals are still important.

I have spent some time judging all kinds of debate, but my expertise resides in LD and CX. In general, I am judge that will pull the trigger on just about anything as long as it's believable. If you can't convince me, then I won't vote for the argument. Here are the basics I expect from every round:

1. I demand at least three voters from both the AFF and NEG. If you don't give me any then I will be forced to utilize judge intervention which I hate to do.

2. I am big on education. Debate is not a game of chess. It is a discussion of issues relevant to our society. Treat it as such.

3. Respect of one another is very important to me. Though it won't cause me to drop you, blatant disrespect will result in lower speaks.

4. You must make your cards easily available if anyone asks for them.

5. Time yourselves. I will hold you to your own integrity.

6. Absolutely no coarse language. I must say this because I have judged and coached in a secular realm.

7. Cross-examination can make or break you. However, I ask that you do your best to maintain a level of decorum during CX. Please guard your facial expressions. Also, guard your questioning as to not attack or belittle the other person. It is easy to do these things without intending to and will result in lower speaker points.

To make things clear with speed, my ear isn't as well trained for it as other judges are. Though I will accept speed in the round, there is such a thing as too fast for me. I prefer clarity over speed. During the round, slow down on the tags and cites. When reading the card, speed as fast as you please. However, if you want me to get something down that is very important, its safer to slow down on it. If you get too fast or unclear, I will yell SLOW once. If you do it again, I will say it again. If you do it a third time, I will flamboyantly drop my pen signaling that I have stopped flowing. If the argument doesn't get on my flow, it doesn't exist. So meet me halfway with speed, and we will be fine.

I do evidence call at the end of the round. Depending on what voters you decide to give me, prepare all the cards that go along with those voters. At the end of the round I will ask for those cards and I will read them for validity. I have dropped a team that debated better than the other all because their card's date didn't precede the their opponent's. I am nitpicky about evidence, so make sure your cards are relevant.

I do not blindly extend without a reason why. Please give me solid reasons as to why extending a card is important. Also, just because person drops and argument doesn't mean that they should lose. Dropped arguments happen all the time, so give me a real reason why a particular argument that was dropped should be valued.

I cannot say this enough, but DO NOT run 10 or 12 offcase just to kick out of them in block. I cannot stand it when teams that have the advantage of speed use it to abuse the affirmative. Do it and I will drop your speaks. That is one of my biggest pet peeves in the world.

My specific thresholds for arguments:

AC: I know it's very novice, but the affirmative plan must have a clear plantext. I've ran into debates where the plantext was unclear and made the debate very sloppy. On solvency, I presume NEG until the AFF proves they solve. I am very big on the stock issues. If the AFF cannot win all of the stock issues, they won't win the round.

Counterplans: When the negative runs a counterplan, I will immediately presume AFF. This means that NEG must prove that CP will solve the advantages better than plan. If the NEG decides to kick the CP at any point in the round, then I won't hold presumption against them. It is important that you have a valid net-benefit and a COMPETITIVE counterplan text.

Kritiks: I am weary of allowing kritiks because I've had too many competitors either run it wrong or run something so complex that it isn't understandable. Bottomline, if you run one, run it correctly and explain it well. Otherwise, I might have a hard time voting on it.

Disads: No credible link= no disad. I refuse to pull the trigger on it if you can't convince me of the link. However, if the AFF drops the link and you prove that it is important enough to vote on I will pull the trigger.

Theory: I personally despise theory. I ran it in high school, but learned to hate it because most of the time in turned to pointless bickering. If there is potential for abuse, you better prove it or I will dismiss it. With that said, I have voted a team down simply because thier strat created the potential for abuse, regardless of whether the team in that round was abused or not.

Topicality: I was T shark in high school, so run this argument right. Please don't run a shell that is very weak. If the AFF is non-topical, then prove it. Otherwise, accept that the AFF topical and pick a new strat. T is an independent voter for me. If I see that the AFF is non-topical and the NEG brings it up through the round, I vote NEG immediately.

For LD:

I have seen and competed in LD rounds that became one-man policy rounds. I think that while they were fun to compete in, they do not have their place in LD. This style of debate was made for a reason, and I value the integrity of the style.

It is mandatory that both the affirmative and the negative have a clear Value and Criterion in their case. This is for clarity in the round.

Affirmative has the burden of proof, while the Negative has the burden of clash. Failure to do this can result in you losing the round, no matter how good you debated.

This is just a basic idea of what I like to see and not see in a policy and LD round. It certainly does not encompass the entirety of my philosophy, therefore if you have further questions that weren't answered here I am more than happy to answer them in the round.

cadecottrell@gmail.com

Updated February 2024

Yes I know my philosophy is unbearably long. I keep adding things without removing others, the same reason I was always top heavy when I debated. But I tried to keep it organized so hopefully you can find what you need, ask me questions if not.

For the few college tournaments I judge, understand that my philosophy is geared towards being of use to high school students since that is the vast, vast majority of my judging/coaching. Just use that as a filter when reading.

Seriously, I don't care what you read as long as you do it well. I really don't care if you argue that all K debaters should be banned from debate or argue that anyone who has ever read a plan is innately racist and should be kicked out of the community. If you win it, I'm happy to vote for it.

***Two Minutes Before A Debate Version***

I debated in high school for a school you've never heard of called Lone Peak, and in college for UNLV. I coached Green Valley High School, various Las Vegas schools, as well as helping out as a hired gun at various institutions. I have debated at the NDT, was nationally competitive in high school, and coached a fair share of teams to the TOC if those things matter for your pref sheet (they shouldn't). I genuinely don't have a big bias for either side of the ideological spectrum. I seem to judge a fairly even mix of K vs K, Clash of Civs, and policy debates. I can keep up with any speed as long as its clear, I will inform you if you are not, although don't tread that line because I may miss arguments before I speak up. If you remain unclear I just won't flow it.

Sometimes I look or act cranky. I love debate and I love judging, so don't take it too seriously.

My biases/presumptions (but can of course be persuaded otherwise):

- Tech over Truth, but Logic over Cards

- Quality and Quantity are both useful.

- Condo is generally good

- Generic responses to the K are worse than generic K's

- Politics and States are generally theoretically legitimate (and strategic)

- Smart, logical counterplans don't necessarily need solvency advocates, especially not in the 1NC

- #Team1%Risk

- 2NC's don't read new off case positions often enough

- I believe in aff flexibility (read: more inclusive interpretations of what's topical) more than almost anyone I know. That is demonstrated in almost every aff I've read or coached.

- I'll vote for "rocks are people" if you win it (warrant still needed). Terrible arguments are easily torn apart, but that's the other team's duty, not mine.

***

A Few Notes You Should Know:

Speaker Points: Firstly, I compare my speaker points to the mean after almost every tournament, so I try to stay in line with the community norm. I have had a dilemma with speaker points, and have recently changed my view. I think most judges view speaker points as a combination of style and substance, with one being more valuable than the other depending on the judge. I have found this frustrating as both a debater and coach trying to figure what caused a judge to give out the speaks they did. So I've decided to give out speaker points based solely on style rather than substance. I feel whichever team wins the substance of the debate will get my ballot so you are already rewarded, so I am going to give out speaker points based on the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos of a debater. Logos implies you are still extending good, smart arguments, but it just means that I won't tank speaks based off of technical drops (like floating pics, or a perm, etc) as some judges do, and I won't reward a team's speaker points for going for those arguments if I feel they are worse "speakers", the ballot is reward enough. Functionally all it means is that I probably give more low-point wins than some judges (about one a tournament), but at least you know why when looking at cume sheets after tournaments.

Debate is a rhetorical activity. This means if you want me to flow an argument, it must be intelligible, and warranted. I will not vote on an argument I do not have on my flow in a previous speech. I am a decent flow so don't be too scared but it means that if you are planning on going for your floating pic, a specific standard/trick on theory, a permutation that wasn't answered right in the block, etc. then you should make sure I have that argument written down and that you have explained it previously with sufficient nuance. I might feel bad that I didn't realize you were making a floating pic in the block, but only briefly, and you'll feel worse because ultimately it is my responsibility to judge based off of what is on my flow, so make those things clear. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

(*Update: This is no longer true in online debate tournaments, I look through docs because of potential clairty/tech issues*: I don't look at speech docs during debates except in rare instances. I read much less evidence after debates than most judges, often none at all. If you want me to read evidence, please say so, but also please tell me what I'm looking for. I prefer not to read evidence, so when I do after a round it means one of three things: 1. The debate is exceedingly close and has one or two issues upon which I am trying to determine the truth (rare). 2. You asked me to read the evidence because "its on fire" (somewhat common and potentially a fire hazard). 3. The debate was bad enough that I am trying to figure out what just happened.)

Prep time: I generally let teams handle their own prep, I do prefer if you don't stop prep until the email is sent. Doing so will make me much happier. If you are very blatantly stealing prep, I might call you out on it, or it might affect speaker points a little.

***

Neg: I am very much in favor of depth over breadth. Generally that doesn't affect how I feel about large 1NC's but it means I find myself thinking "I wish they had consolidated more in the block" quite often, and almost never the opposite. If you don't consolidate much, you might be upset with the leeway I give to 1AR/2AR explanations. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate. Pick your best arguments and go to battle.

DA's: I love in-depth disad debates. Teams that beat up on other teams with large topic disads usually have one of two things: A. A large number of pre-written blocks B. A better understanding of the topic than their opponents. If you have both, or the latter, I'll quite enjoy the debate. If you only have the former, then you can still get the ballot but not as much respect (or speaker points). Small disads very specific to the aff are awesome. Small disads that are small in order to be unpredictable are not. I am of the "1% risk" discipline assuming that means the disad is closely debated. I am not of that discipline if your disad is just silly and you are trying to win it is 1% true, know the difference.

CP's: I have a soft spot for tricky counterplans. That doesn't mean I think process/cheating counterplans are legitimate, that just means I'll leave my bias at the door more than most judges if you get into a theory debate. That said, theory is won or lost through explanation, not through having the largest blocks. Generally I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, that doesn't mean you can't win of yours isn't, it just means if it is then you probably have some theoretical high ground. I also think if you have a specific solvency advocate for the counterplan (meaning a piece of evidence that advocates doing the counterplan, not just evidence that says the counterplan "is a thing" [I'm looking at you, Consult CP people]) you should utilize that both as a solvency argument and as a theoretical justification for the counterplan. I am neutral on the judge kick question. If you want me to judge kick, say so in the 2NR/2NC, and if you don't then say so in the 1AR/2AR, that's an argument to be had. However, if no one makes an argument either way, my default is if the 2NR is DA, CP, Case, then I think there is an implicit assumption in that strategy that the squo is an option. If the 2NR is only CP & DA, I think the implicit assumption is aff vs. CP. Advantage counterplans are vastly underutilized. Logical counterplans probably don't need solvency advocates.

T: I think the way reasonability is construed is sad and a disservice to the argument. I perceive competing interpretations as a question of whose interpretation sets the best standard for all future debate, and reasonability as a question of whether the aff harmed the negative's fairness/education in this specific round. Under that interpretation (Caveat: This assumes you are explaining reasonability in that fashion, usually people do not). I tend to lean towards reasonability since I think T should be a check against aff's that try to skirt around the topic, rather than as a catch-all. T is to help guarantee the neg has predictable ground. I've voted neg a few times when the aff has won their interp is technically accurate but the neg has won their interp is better for fairness/limits/ground, but that's mostly because I think that technical accuracy/framer's intent is an internal link, rather than an impact. Do the additional work.

Theory: This is a discussion of what debate should look like, which is one of the most simple questions to ask ourselves, yet people get very mixed up and confused on theory since we are trained to be robots. I LOVE theory debates where the debaters understand debate well enough to just make arguments and use clash, and HATE debates where the debaters read blocks as fast as possible and assume people can flow that in any meaningful fashion (very few can, I certainly can't. Remember, I don't have the speech doc open). I generally lean negative on theory questions like condo (to a certain extent) and CP theory args, but I think cp's should be textually, and more importantly, functionally competitive, see above.

Framework/T against Non-Traditional Aff's: I have read and gone for both the Procedural Fairness/T version of this argument and the State Action Good/Framework version of this argument many times. I am more than willing to vote for either, and I also am fine with teams that read both and then choose one for the 2NR. However, I personally am of the belief that fairness is not an impact in and of itself but is an internal link to other impacts. If you go for Fairness as your sole impact you may win, but adequate aff answers to it will be more persuasive in front of me. Fairness as the only impact assumes an individual debate is ultimately meaningless, which while winnable, is the equivalent of having a 2NR against a policy aff that is solely case defense, and again I'm by default #1%RiskClub. "Deliberation/dialogue/nuanced discussion/role switching is key to ____________" sorts of arguments are usually better in front of me. As far as defending US action, go for it. My personal belief is that the US government is redeemable and reformable but I am also more than open to voting on the idea that it is not, and these arguments are usually going straight into the teeth of the aff's offense so use with caution. TVA's are almost essential for a successful 2NR unless the aff is clearly anti-topical and you go for a nuanced switch side argument. TVA's are also most persuasive when explained as a plan text and what a 1AC looks like, not just a nebulous few word explanation like "government reform" or "A.I. to solve patriarchy". I like the idea of an interp with multiple net benefits and often prefer a 1NC split onto 3-4 sheets in order to separate specific T/FW arguments. If you do this, each should have a clear link (which is your interp), an internal link and impact. Lastly, I think neg teams often let affs get away with pre-requisite arguments way too much, usually affs can't coherently explain why reading their philosophy at the top of the 1AC and then ending with a plan of action doesn't fulfill the mandates of their pre-requisite.

K's: These are the best and worst debates. The bad ones tend to be insufferable and the good ones tend to be some of the most engaging and thought provoking. Sadly, most debaters convince themselves they fall into the latter when they are the former so please take a good, long look in the mirror before deciding which you fall under. I have a broad knowledge of K authors, but not an in depth one on many, so if you want to go for the K you better be doing that work for me, I won't vote for anything that I don't totally understand BEFORE reading evidence, because I think that is a key threshold any negative should meet (see above), so a complex critical argument can be to your advantage or disadvantage depending on how well you explain it. I also think the framing args for the K need to be impacted and utilized, that in my opinion is the easiest way to get my ballot (unless you turn case or win a floating pic). In other words, if you can run the K well, do it, if not, don't (at least not in the 2NR).

Edit: I think it usually helps to know what the judge knows about your critique, so this list below may help be a guide:

I feel very comfortable with, know the literature, and can give good feedback on: Nietzsche, Wilderson, Moten (& Harney), Security, Neoliberalism, Historical Materialism, Colonialism (both Decoloniality and Postcolonialism), Fem IR, Deleuze and Guattari (at least relative to most).

I have both debated and read these arguments, but still have gaps in my knowledge and may not know all the jargon: Hillman, Schmitt, Edelman, Zizek cap args, Agamben, Warren, Ableism, Kristeva, Heidegger, Orientalism, Virillio, Lacan, Anthro, Ligotti, Bataille, settler colonialism metaphysics arguments.

ELI5: Baudrillard, postmodern feminism arguments, Killjoy, Bifo, Zizek psychoanalysis, Object Oriented Ontology, Spanos, Buddhism, Taoism, your specific strain of "cybernetics", probably anything that isn't on these lists but ask first.

***

Aff:

Bad aff teams wait til the 2AR to decide what their best arguments are against a position. Good aff teams have the round vision to make strategic choices in the 1AR and exploit them in the 2AR. Great aff teams have the vision to create a comprehensive strategy going into the 2AC. That doesn't mean don't give yourself lots of options, it just means you should know what arguments are ideally in the 2AR beforehand and you should adapt your 2AC based off of the 1NC as a whole. Analytical arguments in a 2AC are vastly underused.

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I'm fine with these. They don't excite me any more or less than a topical aff. I think the key to these aff's is always framing. Both because negatives often go for framework but also because it is often your best tool against their counter-advocacy/K. I often am more persuaded by Framework/T when the aff is antitopical, rather than in the direction of the resolution, but I've voted to the contrary of that frequently enough. This won't affect the decision but I'll enjoy the aff more if it is very specific (read: relevant/jermaine/essential) to the topic, or very personal to yourself, it annoys me when people read non-traditional aff's just to be shady. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

Answering K's: It is exceedingly rare that the neg can't win a link to their K. That doesn't mean you shouldn't question the link by any means, permutations are good ways to limit the strength of neg offense, but it means that impact turning the K/alternative is very often a better strategy than going for a link turn and permutation for 5 minutes in the 2AR. I think this is a large reason why aff's increasingly have moved further right or further left, because being stuck in the middle is often a recipe for disaster. That said, being able to have a specific link turn or impact turn to the K that is also a net benefit to the permutation while fending against the most offensive portions of negative link arguments are some of the best 2AR's.

Last Notes:

I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. If you only need a minute in the 2NR/2AR then just use a minute, cover up any outs, and finish. I believe in the mercy rule in that sense. I will vote against teams that clip and give the culprit 0 speaker points, however I believe in the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", so be certain before levying accusations and make sure to have a recording. (Explicitly tell me that you want to issue a clipping challenge, I've had debaters email me and I don't see it, or wait until after the debate. Don't do that.)

I'll give you +.1 speaker points if you can tell me what phrase appears the most in my philosophy. Because it shows you care, you want to adapt to your judge, and maybe because I'm a tad narcissistic.

Things I like:
- A+ Quality Evidence (If you have such a card, and you explain why its better than the 3+ cards the other team read, I accept that more willingly than other judges)

- Brave (strategic) 1AR/2AR decisions

- Politics disads that turn each advantage

- If you are behind, I'd much rather you cheat/lie/steal (maybe not steal, and cheat within reason) than give up. If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.

- Neg blocks that only take 1-2 flows and just decimate teams.

- Controlling the "spin" of arguments (I'll give a lot of leeway)

- Red Bull/Monster/M&M's (Bringing me any of these will make me happy, me being happy generally correlates to higher speaker points)

Things I don't like:
- Not knowing how to send speech docs in a timely manner!

- Debaters that act like they are of superior intelligence compared to their partner/opponents

- Reading arguments with little value other than trying to blindside teams (timecube, most word pics, etc.) Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

- Being unclear

- Horses (Stop acting like they're so goddamn majestic, they're disgusting)

- Toasted Coconut

POLICY DEBATE

I competed in varsity policy debate for one year, and 2015-2016 is my fourth season judging high school policy debate. I am a policymaker judge.

And, I hate spreading!

• I will not flow arguments I don't understand because of your poor delivery skills
• I can't extend your argument through a round if I never had it down at all
• One of your goals as a CX debater is to stack as many arguments as you can, but you absolutely must remain within your own limit of what you can deliver properly

This is a public speaking debate event. Act and speak like it. If you simply want to have the most number of arguments for "education" purposes, you should instead write 50-page white papers and I'd gladly read them. If you are going too fast, I will call "clear" or drop my pen or just stare at you or any combination thereof, thus, not flowing.

IMPORTANT: Signpost, signpost, signpost!

I don't want to have to figure out for you where your argument or card ends and where the next one starts. It's your job to tell me that. If you don't, and tell me in a later speech to extend an argument you did not signpost properly, I won't be able to find your argument.

If you must deviate from your roadmap, say it. If you're all over the place, you risk my not being able to catch an argument because I'm trying to find where to flow you. Organization is also critical in your speaker points.

Stock issues are prima facie burdens

Aff always has the prima facie burden of proving stock issues. Aff can lose my ballot if the burden of proof for ALL stock issues are not met.

• Topicality: Yes, I vote on T, but Neg has a responsibility to run sensible and ethical T arguments. I've voted against T many times before for being outlandish, frivolous, or otherwise a misrepresentation of facts.

Cards that say differently from their tags...

...Are unethical, abusive, and strictly prohibited. If there is a dispute, be prepared to show me the cards in question. If this is a pattern, expect your speaker points to plummet, and could potentially cost you the round.

Tag team cross-examination: Never in varsity rounds, always in novice rounds. I may prohibit this in JV rounds if at least one student opposes it very strongly. When tag teaming is allowed, I will still score each speaker's performance separately.

Cross-examination and prep time: I don't flow cross-examination so they don't affect who wins the round, but they are a large part of your speaker points and should affect how you try to win my ballot. Stealing prep time is strictly prohibited. "Stop prep" means that you are ready to transfer, not save, your files. When somebody has already stood up ready to give me a roadmap and start the speech, no one is allowed to be prepping in the background.

Kritiks: I'm a policymaker judge. If you can't present a K with the stated goal of directly affecting the policy I should enact/reject as your adjudicator, don't run K. If you can, more power to you!

CPs, PICs: These are fair game. I'm open to basic theory debate about CPs and PICs. But, other than that, I am a policymaker judge.

Speaker points: Because this is a high-speed debate (but I still do hate spreading!), I will not judge your body language technique. But, I will judge your overall attitude, which shows very evidently in your body language. How you speak - voice, enunciation, inflection, analysis, rhetoric, organization, etc. - will all be judged. I will only judge arguments on my flow, not performance, to determine who wins the round. I very rarely give perfect speaker points because most policy debaters tend to be good at spewing and absolutely terrible at delivery skills.

Theory debate: I'm a policymaker judge. Some theory arguments may be necessary, but I will hate a round full of theory blocks.

No new arguments in rebuttals!

This is simple and straightforward. Read new cards in the rebuttals if necessary but only to support arguments you've already made in the constructives. That said:

• If 2AC drops 1NC argument: it will be considered conceded as Aff does not have another chance to counter it
• If 2NC drops an Aff argument: the 1NR cannot construct a new argument to counter it
• If the 2NC constructs a new argument: the 1AR must answer or drop, where a drop means conceded

POLICY DEBATE

I competed in varsity policy debate for one year, and 2015-2016 is my fourth season judging high school policy debate. I am a policymaker judge.

And, I hate spreading!

• I will not flow arguments I don't understand because of your poor delivery skills
• I can't extend your argument through a round if I never had it down at all
• One of your goals as a CX debater is to stack as many arguments as you can, but you absolutely must remain within your own limit of what you can deliver properly

This is a public speaking debate event. Act and speak like it. If you simply want to have the most number of arguments for "education" purposes, you should instead write 50-page white papers and I'd gladly read them. If you are going too fast, I will call "clear" or drop my pen or just stare at you or any combination thereof, thus, not flowing.

IMPORTANT: Signpost, signpost, signpost!

I don't want to have to figure out for you where your argument or card ends and where the next one starts. It's your job to tell me that. If you don't, and tell me in a later speech to extend an argument you did not signpost properly, I won't be able to find your argument.

If you must deviate from your roadmap, say it. If you're all over the place, you risk my not being able to catch an argument because I'm trying to find where to flow you. Organization is also critical in your speaker points.

Stock issues are prima facie burdens

Aff always has the prima facie burden of proving stock issues. Aff can lose my ballot if the burden of proof for ALL stock issues are not met.

• Topicality: Yes, I vote on T, but Neg has a responsibility to run sensible and ethical T arguments. I've voted against T many times before for being outlandish, frivolous, or otherwise a misrepresentation of facts.

Cards that say differently from their tags...

...Are unethical, abusive, and strictly prohibited. If there is a dispute, be prepared to show me the cards in question. If this is a pattern, expect your speaker points to plummet, and could potentially cost you the round.

Tag team cross-examination: Never in varsity rounds, always in novice rounds. I may prohibit this in JV rounds if at least one student opposes it very strongly. When tag teaming is allowed, I will still score each speaker's performance separately.

Cross-examination and prep time: I don't flow cross-examination so they don't affect who wins the round, but they are a large part of your speaker points and should affect how you try to win my ballot. Stealing prep time is strictly prohibited. "Stop prep" means that you are ready to transfer, not save, your files. When somebody has already stood up ready to give me a roadmap and start the speech, no one is allowed to be prepping in the background.

Kritiks: I'm a policymaker judge. If you can't present a K with the stated goal of directly affecting the policy I should enact/reject as your adjudicator, don't run K. If you can, more power to you!

CPs, PICs: These are fair game. I'm open to basic theory debate about CPs and PICs. But, other than that, I am a policymaker judge.

Speaker points: Because this is a high-speed debate (but I still do hate spreading!), I will not judge your body language technique. But, I will judge your overall attitude, which shows very evidently in your body language. How you speak - voice, enunciation, inflection, analysis, rhetoric, organization, etc. - will all be judged. I will only judge arguments on my flow, not performance, to determine who wins the round. I very rarely give perfect speaker points because most policy debaters tend to be good at spewing and absolutely terrible at delivery skills.

Theory debate: I'm a policymaker judge. Some theory arguments may be necessary, but I will hate a round full of theory blocks.

No new arguments in rebuttals!

This is simple and straightforward. Read new cards in the rebuttals if necessary but only to support arguments you've already made in the constructives. That said:

• If 2AC drops 1NC argument: it will be considered conceded as Aff does not have another chance to counter it
• If 2NC drops an Aff argument: the 1NR cannot construct a new argument to counter it
• If the 2NC constructs a new argument: the 1AR must answer or drop, where a drop means conceded

Updated 8/22/2019

She/her

I am a former coach and debater from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I am currently a Masters student at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

3rd year judging college debate

6th year judging high school debate

N/A rounds on the college topic judged so far

8 rounds judged on the high school topic so far

Please include me on the email chain - Email:Taylor3@unlv.nevada.edu

*strongly prefer email over pocketbox(or speech drop)

TLDR Version:
I am willing to evaluate any arguments that you make, as long as you explain and execute it well. There is no need to change your arguments to something you think I like or will vote on, just give me the best debate you can, using your best arguments, and you will be fine. I try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of my decision as much as possible. I am more of a tech > truth judge, because I think technical debate is good debate. If you aren't doing line by line debate, or keeping things organized in some other manner, my flows probably look a mess which isn't good for anyone, so please keep things clean.

Long Version:
I will attempt to be as neutral as possible and evaluate the arguments presented in the debate independent of my own opinions.

I think it is important to EXTEND WARRANTS inside your evidence. You should explain the importance/relevance/ implications of the evidence as well. Tagline extended claims without warrants are not complete arguments.

Smart analytical arguments beat terrible cards all day, every day. Please don't just card dump if you never plan to explain any of those arguments or worse yet, if you aren't sure what to say. I would prefer you take the time to logically think through the other teams arguments than just read a bunch of cards that don't make arguments.

Judge Instructions/Directions: This is super important, especially in the last rebuttals, tell me why I should vote for you in response to the other teams arguments about why I should vote for them. Tell me how I should begin evaluating the round by comparing your arguments to the other team's.

Theory: Slow down on theoretical arguments, or I won't be able to flow them. They should not be read at the same speed as a card. I am fine to adjudicate theory args but you need to be specific, tell me how many conditional advocacies is too many and what specific abuse that causes.

Affirmatives with a plan: If I don't understand what the aff does at the end of the round or how it accesses its impacts, I won't vote for it. Make sure you are contextualizing your arguments to the specific round and not just reading generic blocks.

Critical Affirmatives- I am open to critical affirmatives that either defend a relationship to the topic or make offense reasons as to why they don't have to. Be careful about trying to be tricky, it may confuse the other team (idk why you want that) but it could easily backfire and leave me lost as well.

Negative critical arguments: I am willing to vote on any argument as long as it is well explained and has specific links to the aff. Your Kritik should have an alt and impact that is explained by the negative, I am highly unlikely to vote negative if you do not extend the alt. I am not familiar with all critical arguments, but I have had experience with a wide variety; capitalism, ableism, queerness, and anti-blackness are the arguments I am most familiar with. My last year as a debater I primarily read Warren on the negative, so I am most familiar with afro pessimism arguments when it comes to my understanding of anti-blackness. Good alt explanation can resolve any lack of knowledge I have. I am not a fan of post modernist critiques so it is a slightly higher threshold for explanation. The affirmative should always permutate critical arguments, and explain how the permutation functions, as well as how it resolves any residual links to the kritik.

Other negative arguments
CPs— I am fine with counterplans, but prefer they have some sort of solvency advocate as well as a net benefit. The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and distributed to the other team. Affirmative permutations need to be explained, if you go for it, I need to know why I should prefer the perm to the CP and how it gets out of any DA links.

Disadvantages- I really like a DA vs. Case debate, but you need to have a link to the aff. Make sure to explain how the aff links to the disad and then how it triggers the impact(have a clear link story).

Topicality- I feel that it is a very strategic argument to be made in debate. Needs to be well articulated with both sides submitting competing interpretations. T arguments should be extremely structured and organized to make it easier for me to see why this is a voting issue. If you don't have a TVA and a list of specific abuses caused by the affirmatives interpretation, you will have a hard time winning T in front of me.

Speaker Points- You should be clear and able to explain your arguments well. I enjoy jokes and clever analogies that are relevant to the round and arguments being made. I adjust my points based off the level of debate I am judging, so a 28.5 in Novice is not equal to a 28.5 in Open.

Few other things-

1. Do not steal prep!!!! I do not take time for sending out the document, but when the team that took prep calls time, everyone else should pause until the speech is handed over and begins.
2. Only one person should be speaking per speech, unless it is a performative necessity or an accessibility issue in which case that should be made clear during the debate.
3. Flow! If you are not flowing I notice and it probably reflects in the quality of your speeches, in particular the line by line debate.
4. My face is pretty expressive, if I look confused or annoyed (during a speech or CX) I probably am and you should be reflexive about that.
5. Debate should be fun; it is a game so be nice and courteous to everyone involved.

If you would like something explained further, please feel free to ask me questions before the round or send me an email. If you have any questions about debating in college or about debate in general, feel free to contact me, I am more than happy to help in any way that I can.

I'm a policy debater at UNLV, so I'm down with speed, weird args, classic case args, and pretty much anything you want to throw at me. On that same note, don't expect me to know the philosophy/arg you're running if you haven't explained it well. I most likely will get it, but I will disregard my prior knowledge for the sake of a fairer debate if it comes to that. You do you, I'm just here to objectively weigh the points in the debate.

*If I'm not judging you in a policy round, the same applies. Give me something to vote on in your rebuttal speeches. Voters, framework, role of the ballot, I win because are all a thing and they are effective.*

Speaks:

I give pretty high speaks to begin with. I like funny jokes, I love puns (good ones please), if you can make me laugh I'll definitely add points. Don't worry if you can't be funny, I'm not, so I won't dock you for it.

BE CLEAR. I've noticed people trying too hard to go too fast and it's never pretty. I will yell clear or slow if needed. The second time I have to tell you is when I'll start docking speaks. 

 There's only one thing I'd automatically dock hard for. If you say an offensive term, and we all know what those are, I'm going to warn you, then I'll take a few points. I don't care about cursing even though I'm sure your coaches would, I won't dock points for cursing, but I will for insults and degrogatory terminology. If you do it after I warn you, you're getting a 0. 

Most of all, HAVE FUN. Debate is an enjoyable activity and sometimes I feel like most of you are walking into a round looking like you're heading to the executioners. I will do my best to make the round an educational one. My philosophy is that if you walk out of a debate round knowing more than you come in, winning or losing matters much less. Enjoy yourselves y'all.