Overall, I am mostly a tabula rasa type judge. I want each team to tell me what the best paradigm is, why and how I should adopt it, and why they best satisfy victory under the conditions of that paradigm. I'll vote how you tell me to. If both teams tell me how to vote, give me a reason to prefer your framework over theirs

If you don't give me a paradigm, I will revert to a hybrid of stock issue and policymaker judge. This means that I expect the stock issues to be covered in some way (even if you give me a different paradigm, the stock issues form a common language and rubric for debate that I think needs to be followed for the most part), and I expect discussion centered around fundamental elements of policymaking, such as cost, feasability, workability, political considerations, ethical considerations, etc. as well as the net benefit analysis. The NBA is key for me. Whoever wins the NBA wins the debate for me 9/10 times

On the off-case flow, I am 100% a judge that will vote on Topicality. But if you go for T, really go for T. That doesn't mean kick everything but T, but rather, make a real argument. In my mind, the standards are absolutely the most significant element of the T debate. And make the voters have some impact. If you read fairness and education, best tell me why your interp links to fairness and education and why it has impact on the round. All that goes for Aff, too. The right to define doesn't mean your interp is automatically better. Give me a reason to prefer

I love disads. I am fine with generic disads. I am fine with unique disads. I am good with linear DAs. Ptix is okay. I love them all!

I love counterplans. I am fine with generic counterplans. I am fine with unique counterplans. I don't get too hung up on the deep CP theory, though. And make sure to give me a plan text and preferably, a competing advantage...

I am somewhat receptive to Kritiks. That being said, I detest the "every year" kritiks that kids dust off season after season. If you're reading K, try to make it a unique K that applies specifically to this season's resolution, or work very hard to adapt your generic K to this year's resolution. I'll listen to discourse Kritiks, but there better be real impact, and I would expect something more than "role of the ballot" for the alt. Me giving you opponent a loss doesn't change debate. It doesn't educate. It may actually make the problems worse...

As for speed and performance, I do believe debate is a communicaton activity first. I can evaluate speed but am unimpressed by it. I value quality over quantity and 100% think that the warrant debate trumps the evidence debate. A handful of cogent, relative, strong arguments will win the debate over the spread 9/10 times

I expect everyone involved to be good sports. I don't care much about how you dress or how you speak or if you don't debate the "right" way, but I care A LOT about how you treat one another...

I am good with paperless debate and speech docs, but don't use that as an excuse to quit listening to each other, or to try to spread. Also, paperless debate isn't an excuse to add 10 minutes of extra prep time to your rounds.

I have many years of experience as a competitor, an assistant, and a head coach so I have seen a bit of everything

That's about all I have. Ask me any additional you may have, prior to the round, and best of luck!

Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.

EDIT: A lot of my thoughts on policy have changed. You should read it if you're doing your prefs.

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days but I will see a LD or PF round every now and then.

General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.

2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.

3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.

4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision. Yes, to judge instruction.

5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.

6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.

Policy Debate

1. I didn't do policy debate in high school or in college. That being said, I have judged policy for a few years now and have been able to learn most of it myself. However, don't expect me to be able to know uber-specific lingo or argumentation. Obviously, doing LD debate and judging policy, I have picked up a lot, but that does not mean I know how every single perm or kritik functions. Even as someone with some success in debate I am not going to sit here and pretend like I'm going to know exactly what you're saying while you're going NASCAR speed. To solve this use your smart people skills if you have doubt that I'm going to understand your alt, permutations, standards, framing, etc.... you should probably explain to me how it functions and what it means for the debate. If you want to treat me like a lay parent judge, I really couldn't care less.

2. I'm a busy college kid who is nice enough to judge on the weekends. I have not done any research on the topic at all, and honestly, even if I did have time, I probably wouldn't anyway, this topic looks abysmal. Don't expect me to know topic-specific lingo without seeing a doc.

3. My speed threshold is around a 7/10. I will say "clear" if it gets too fast. If you are reading analytics, please put them in the document if you gonna Zoom through them, but if you really want to make me happy, just slow down on them. If you make me type out 5 perms that I have to remember by memory as you speed through them, I will probably not even attempt to flow them. The rule here is to be reasonable to me.

General Things

1. Policy (Case, DA, CP) - I love a good case debate to weigh against a few disads and a counterplan. This is going to be where you get my best quality of judging. I'm a sucker for specific links; although generics aren't terrible, I will reward specifics and good evidence quality. I will make a big sad face if case is completely ignored after the neg block seems to happen in half the rounds I judge. As far as counterplans go, I'm cool with advantage and process counterplans unless I'm given a reason not to be. This extends to conditionality as well.

2. T- I have to admit topicality is very uninteresting. Its literally the same generic files being read every time, which really isn't the fault of anyone; I just have heard the same thing for a while now. Long story short, I prefer competing interps, but I can be sympathetic toward reasonability. Not a huge RVI guy I already find T to be painful so if your trying to bait T I'm probably not gonna be enthusiastic about it. In all seriousness, if you gonna go for T, I need good work to be done on the violation and standards.

3. Theory - I have a lot of the same thoughts on theory as I do on T (shocker). Out-of-round abuses or before-round abuses are a little tricky to handle screenshots would be great for something like disclosure theory if you want to run that. I am EXTREMELY sympathetic to voting for an issue that was mentioned either on tabroom or verbally before the round that then became an abuse such as speed, pronouns, disability etc...... Just be smart, and this should never be an issue for you. That aside, most theory is really bad and is either bait or just awful interps. I'm definitely sympathetic towards reasonability and prefer to drop the argument, not the team, outside of the previously mentioned arguments.

4. K-I'm familiar with a certain level of K lit. Anything going into some deep epistemological grounds or just outright obscure, you're going to need to explain to me. Really good, specific links will get you in a good place with me right off the bat. The alt, I think, deserves some more nuance than it seems to get. If it's uber vague, tell me at least why it's sufficient to solve. Yes, weigh the aff unless I'm told otherwise. Yes perms but please explain how they function saying a perm then moving on isn't persuasive to me.

5. K affs- I will be upfront about this Im probably not your guy for this if it makes you feel any better I have voted for some K affs before. These rounds just usually get into some lit I'm not familiar with and get so fast, especially on the T framing, that I just get cooked. AC advocacy needs to be clear. Again good links matter to me. Your TVA responses should probably be really good unless you want me to find easy reason to vote neg. Most Importantly, I need to know what the K does and need some level of solvency from the K.

Traditional LD

Only Warning

I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I do not think it's impressive to win the flow while making the debate as inaccessible as possible for your opponent.

General Things

1. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)

2. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

3. Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.

4. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in trad LD. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence. This is not to say I don't enjoy analytics with good warrants.

Public Forum Debate

1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get a paraphrasing of evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystalize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

He/him/his. wsoper03@gmail.com

I am the debate coach at Manhattan High School. I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I worked at both the Michigan and Kansas debate camps this summer and I've judged dozens of debates on the topic.

I am a better judge for topic-specific, evidence-based arguments. ASPEC, counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy, and impact turns which argue large portions of the population should die are not persuasive to me.

Clarity. Clarity is very important to me. I do not have the speech document pulled up when the debate is happening. If I don't understand you, I will not vote for your argument.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Plan text in a vacuum. I think there are two ways the negative can demonstrate a topicality violation. 1. Explaining why the affirmative's plan text does not meet the specific requirement set by the interpretation or 2. referencing a CX where the affirmative clearly committed to a mandate of their plan.
The plan text is the focus of the debate. If you think the affirmative's solvency advocate or advantages describe something other than their plan text, that is a solvency argument, not a topicality argument.

Kritiks. Since I have been in debate, negative kritiks have started to look more and more like process CPs. Often, the 2NR will be 4.5 minutes of a framework interpretation that amounts to "if we disprove one part of the affirmative, ignore the case and vote neg," with the remaining 30 seconds restating the thesis of a "link" argument. This version is unpersuasive to me, in part, because it treats the link part of the kritik as a box to check to satisfy the negative's arbitrary framework interpretation, rather than an indict of the aff's core assumptions.

For example, let's say the affirmative reads an advantage about beating China in the tech race. A kritik that says the aff's descriptions of China are inaccurate and make war more likely because they rely on Eurocentric assumptions about state behavior would be very persuasive to me. A kritik that says calling China a threat is a microaggression to Chinese debaters in "the debate space" would not be very persuasive to me. I cannot remember the last time an "ontology" argument was relevant to my decision.

Planless affs. I strongly believe affirmative teams should read a topical plan. I am happy to listen to affirmatives that have creative justifications for why their plan is topical or affirm the resolution in a non-traditional way. However, the justifications for affirmatives which advocate explicitly non-topical action are increasingly unpersuasive to me. Reasons the resolution is bad are negative arguments, not arguments against topicality. Clash/fairness/debate bad arguments are non-starters in a voluntary activity. This isn't to say I will automatically vote negative if the aff doesn't read a plan, just that in a close debate, I am strongly biased in favor of the negative's interpretation.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.