Li,+Albert

Katy Taylor 2011-2015 UC Berkeley 2015-2019 Conflicts: Katy Taylor, Bellarmine, Oakland Tech Debated on the space, transportation infrastructure, Latin America, and oceans topics

LAST UPDATED: February 2017


 * I have now judged at the UH tournament, every round through to finals. I know very very basic lingo associated with the topic. I would also say I'm 60/40 Truth>Tech*
 * I'll also give you some extra speaks if you don't use all your prep time. That being said, don't rely on this for a big speaks bump and use as much as you need*

When I was a debater I found that most judge philosophies were useless for preferences. Being “open to everything” doesn’t really help the debater (or coach) looking to not spend a million hours inputting prefs before a tournament. Here is the link to my aff wiki senior year: http://hspolicy14.debatecoaches.org/Katy+Taylor/Li%2DAlattar+Aff Here is the link to my neg wiki senior year: http://hspolicy14.debatecoaches.org/Katy+Taylor/Li%2DAlattar+Neg Here are the questions I would try to answer and more:


 * 1) WHO IS THIS JUDGE/WHAT IS THEIR EXPERIENCE? – I debated policy at Katy Taylor High School in Katy, Texas as a 1A/2N for 4 years. It’s a relatively small school with low institutional support, but we managed to travel a lot (something I’ll be eternally grateful for). I qualified to the TOC my senior year with 5 bids, usually nabbed a decent speaker award at tournaments, and managed to make a decent amount of elimination round appearances. I consider winning the Cal tournament my greatest achievement. I’m also OK at lay-style debates, though I generally detest them; I won the UIL tournament (super lay/stock/policymaking style) in Texas and managed to clear 3 times at the NFL/NSDA tournament.
 * 2) WHAT ARGUMENTS DOES THIS JUDGE PREFER? – I went for a K in every single 2NR my senior year on the national circuit except for one. The exception was disclosure theory (lol). Prior to that, I tried my best to be a flex debater, but found that politics wasn’t my calling. Stuff that I was familiar with: security, psychoanalysis, criticisms of ecology, stuff about death, Baudrillard, and most other generic stuff. In terms of aff arguments, my partner and I read an aff advocating finding Osama in the ocean (Baudrillard), another about queerness/homonationalism (Puar and Rai), and another about killing whales/subjectivity (Baudrillard). See my wiki for specifics. I will drop you if your arguments are incoherent.
 * 3) IS THERE ANYTHING THIS JUDGE WON’T LISTEN TO? – I’ll probably listen to anything you say, but if you’re planning on being an offensive/ignorant asshole, I’m probably planning on voting against you. I’ll vote on the mundane, like A-Spec; the detestable, like politics; or the confusing, like that one high theory backfile you pulled out because you had no idea what the other team was saying. I’m actually also pretty neutral on T/Framework, despite my background. That being said, I’d so much rather see you debating the politics DA well than the weird K backfile poorly.
 * 4) ANY OTHER BIASES? – Given a clean slate, I’m sympathetic towards two conditional advocacies for the negative. I can’t really see myself voting for vague/utopian alts unless there’s a lot of shifting going on that makes the other speeches irrelevant. Word PIKs are probably bad, but people get away with it. Other types of PIKs/PICs are more OK but I can definitely see myself voting on PIKs bad given a baller 2AR. The politics DA is probably intrinsic but people don’t really give a shit. Presumption goes negative until they read an advocacy; then it goes aff. If you’re going to make a presumption argument, try to make it explicit. I feel a little uncomfortable voting for it under most circumstances without having it flagged down, especially with multiple worlds. I’d prefer if people stopped compartmentalizing K 2NCs in a way that fucks up the 2AC order. My favorite DA ever was the Iran Sanctions Politics DA followed by the Elections DA (Obama). My favorite K is probably psychoanalysis (I read Lacan and Jung).
 * 5) DOES THIS JUDGE EVEN KNOW HOW SPEAKER POINTS WORK? – For policy, average speaks are 28.2/28.3. Below a 28 means you need to work on technical stuff. Below a 27 means you were probably an asshole AND need to work on tech. Below a 26 means you did something horrible. 28.5/28.6 are low-clearing speaks. 29+ means you’ll probably get a speaker award. Be funny if you can afford it; be serious if you want. Inflection is super important.
 * 6) DO YOU DO ANYTHING BESIDES POLICY? – Basically, not really. Sorry, LD people, but you will have to bear with me. I don’t understand the asinine theory interpretations and strange speech times. If you butcher the substance of an argument, it doesn’t mean I won’t vote for you, but it will probably reflect in your speaks. That being said, if a contrived theory argument REALLY IS the best argument you’ve got in your arsenal, then by all means read it. If you can, I almost always prefer arguments engaging with substance, though sometimes I can appreciate a great T argument, too. When choosing what you want to read, just defer to the other parts of my wiki.

If you’ve decided there’s a chance I’m going to judge you, here are some more specifics:

On Topicality/procedurals: I default competing interpretations. I think the best standard is predictable limits, insofar as it can usually implicate the internal links to other standards very easily. The portable skills stuff and education always seemed more “meh” to me, but so long as you impact out all your standards then it really doesn’t matter. Reasonability seems to rely a lot on ground/abuse defense, so it might behoove the aff to make those two arguments in conjunction with each other. Cross-ex probably checks most spec arguments.

Specifically on Framework: I’m really open to most framework arguments (I barely debated this at all my senior year, surprisingly). Like on topicality, I like predictable limits on the negative and arguments about pedagogy and stuff on the aff. Framework isn’t topicality; don’t confuse it as such. Make fun of asinine interp evidence. Institutional engagement arguments likely beg the question of the efficacy of institutions. For the aff, I don't care at all if you're the least topical aff I've ever heard in my life. I'll leave it up to the neg to decide how they want to engage.

On DAs: There isn’t much to say other than that the straight turn in the 1AR is so underused. I love impact turns/internal link turns (not unique to DAs, but I figured I’d just drop that here). I don’t like the politics DA, but, like so many others, have come to accept it as a necessary evil. You’ll make me like it more if you have specific/multiple links/internal links. That applies to every position.

On CPs: There’s been an increasing tension between the theoretical legitimacy of counterplans and the need to deal with smaller affs. I think that debate deserves a bit more contention despite my hatred of bad theory arguments. You should probably have a solvency advocate – it demonstrates good research practices but also checks back against a ton of theoretical concerns. I like when people point out atrocious wording in the text. I wasn’t really much a CP debater, but I can appreciate it when people bust out really cool competition tricks and solve the shit out of the aff.

On Ks: I really like one off strategies. My most common block division was the K in the 2NC and case in the 1NR. The framework debate has devolved mostly into semantics that usually ends up as a middle of the road split. I think K teams need to go more aggressively for a denial of the aff on epistemological/whatever else grounds and policy teams need to go more aggressively for a denial of things like reps-based args in the interest of fairness. The alt’s pretty important, but not necessary to win if you’re winning a ton of case turns. That being said, RECOGNIZE WHEN IT’S A HORRIBLE IDEA TO KICK THE ALT. I don’t mind longer overviews, but if you find yourself saying “that was in the overview” a lot on the line by line then you might wanna consider some reorganization. Also don’t lie to me about how long your goddamn overview is. Shower me with links – quote their evidence and cross-ex.

On Cheating: Pretty serious accusation with serious consequences. If you accuse you better have evidence for it. If I conclude cheating’s gone down then I’ll grant lowest speaks to either one or both members, depending on the nature of the infraction. The accusers win and the cheaters lose. I’ll try to give speaks to the other team accordingly.

On General Speaking Stuff: Please change your speed/tone according to the importance of an argument or between tags/evidence. Don’t spread through analytical stuff; I think people forget that the non-machine nature of the judge means that they will generally pick up on those changes and note them more readily. The rebuttals deserve less speed and more efficiency. If you can flag the important stuff not by explicitly saying it but by implying it through your speaking, you will get fantastic speaks.

I’m still really inexperienced and am formulating my own opinions about debate, the activity, and arguments. I’m probably not a good critic, and there’s a good chance that I will make a lot of incorrect decisions. Feel free to ask me questions about my thought process and contest that; I’d prefer if you weren’t an asshole while doing that.

TANGENTIAL STUFF – I want to just say that if you’re having a hard time handling debate/life and you need someone to talk to, feel free to hit me up. I went through a period of time where I was pretty stressed about my tournament performance in addition to non-debate pressure and I think that especially coming from a small school I can sympathize with the plight of a lot of debaters currently on the circuit. Please don’t be afraid to start a chat with me on Facebook or shoot me an email at ahldebate@gmail.com if you’re looking for someone, and I’m more than willing to be your friend (or try).