Taylor,+Steven


 * I participated in two years of high school debate (LD) in the 1980's and one year of WUDC/BP debate in college. I have been a volunteer high school coach for the past three years.**


 * I am a retired Naval Officer, have a BS in Technology (Mechanical/Welding), BS in Political Science/Social Science, and am 1 class away from completing my MAEd-Secondary Education. My interests include history, political theory, politics, and philosophy.**


 * I will review the key points before the round begins IF YOU ASK.**


 * ALL**

I believe that debate is a communication activity. As such I expect that you will be able to communicate to me your position and provide the supporting evidence for that position. It is to your benefit to make sure that I can understand what you are trying to say. I want you to WALK me through your arguments, give me YOUR analysis, and tell me why/how your contentions support your position. In other words, don't just read me a prepared case from camp or website without making it your own. I can get my 7 and 10 year old sons to read cards.

General Items I like to see: Introductions - Tell me why we are debating the topic Road Maps Sign Posting Analysis Eye Contact

I divide my ballots into several sections: Individual Speakers:These will cover communication skills and specific comments/recommendations for the speaker. Team Specific: I will put specific recommendations for areas of further research, other arguments/contentions that you could use, as well as items that can assist you in preparing for future debates. I WILL NOT USE THESE AS VOTING ISSUES UNLESS RAISED BY THE OTHER TEAM. RFD: Usually simple and to the point. I will not go line by line down the flow on my RFD, but you should be able to check my RFD with your flow.
 * Ballots**


 * LD - I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT VALUES. Look at my interests above.**

Do not give me a definitional debate unless it is ABSOLUTELY NEEDED. Get back to the values.

Please understand the philosophical position you are advocating.

I look for logic, use of evidence to support your contentions, and analysis. Tell me SPECIFICALLY how each contention supports your criterion and value. Tell me how to use your criterion as a weighing mechanism for the round. Support your value and criteria well with your contentions - there needs to be a link.

Speed: **No spreading.** If you want to spread go to Policy. I value depth of analysis over breadth of your case (NO SHOTGUNNING AND DROPPING CONTENTIONS).

I do not have a particular philosophy concerning what I will vote on. If you can convince me, I'm open to it. This means almost anything... I'm open to theory, philosophy, Kritiks (if they are pertinent to the resolution and you provide YOUR OWN ANALYSIS)... Again, give me a weighing mechanism to use when judging the round and tell me how your arguments tip the scale in your direction.


 * Public Forum**

Speed: **No spreading.** If you want to spread go to Policy. I value depth of analysis over breadth of your case (NO SHOTGUNNING AND DROPPING CONTENTIONS).

Pretend that I am your Uncle/Grandfather/etc. and you are trying to convince me to support your side of the resolution. As such, do NOT use debate terminology (inherency, cross-apply, turn, etc.) when presenting your case. In PF I judge more on the conviction and weight behind your arguments and level of clash with the other team instead of specifically off the flow. Be sure to have evidence to back up your claims (I will accept common knowledge claims. For example, I do not need evidence to tell me Obama is the current president.). Make sure you attack your opponents case as well as offer your own. Just offering your own case without attacking your opponents is not enough to win usually. I look for logic as well as evidence when attacking an opponent's case - it's always good to use both to support your own case and to attack your opponent's case. Be respectful during cross-fire. I do not really like multi-part or follow-on questions. This should be a back and forth exchange.


 * Policy**

Speed: Go as fast as you want with the following stipulations: Your SIGNPOSTING (Contentions), TAGs, and CITEs must be slow enough for me to place them on the flow. Additionally, you must slow down and speak clearly if there is anything in the card not specifically mentioned in your tag that you want me to get on the flow. IF I PUT MY PEN DOWN I AM NOT FLOWING. Do not try to run cards out of context. I practice judging by listening to lectures at 3X speed. Look at my background and interests - Do not try to BS me with anything, I will catch you.

I am open to theory, kritiks (if they are pertinent to the resolution/plan and you provide your own analysis), and stock issues. I tend to defer to Neg on T arguments if they are not specifically addressed by AFF (this ties into my notes on K).

Tag Teaming: I use CX to evaluate your understanding of the case you are presenting. As such I DISLIKE tag-teaming during CX (In Oregon, it is against the rules and will result in VERY low speaker points). This may not affect the WIN/LOSS decision, but it may affect your speaker points (lack of understanding, interruptions, etc.).

Timing: I will start prep after each CX/R unless you specifically tell me that you are not taking prep. My reasoning is that if both members of the next speaking team are sitting down then they are preparing. I will give the next speaker a REASONABLE amount of time to go to the podium or stand up if you are not using prep. I will stop prep once you click save (paperless). I do not count road maps as prep or speaking time (see below). I expect the next speaker to immediately stand up, get prepared to speak, and give me a road map while his/her partner works with giving the other team any documents/flash-drive.

Flowing: I flow one argument per sheet of paper. I do not need a road map from the 1AC. However, I require signposting. If you do not see me change pages between contentions then I did not understand you (see speed above). I expect the 1NC to tell me how many off-case arguments and the order of arguments (i.e., 2 off then on case ADV 1, ADV 2; or 1 off, Inherency, ADV 1, 2 off). Starting with the 2AC I expect you to give me the proposed order of your speech using the same signposting as the previous speeches. I use the road map to put my flows in order. Please help me. Note: even if I am not writing does not mean that I am not flowing. I internalize information and then write it down.

As with the other debates I prefer depth of analysis versus breadth of contentions. I will not stand for a shotgun/drop contention strategy.

My RFD is based on the flow and the analysis provided by the debaters and whether I believe the analysis based on the information provided in round. I will give low point wins. Abuse will almost always result in a loss.