Albiniak,+Teddy

Teddy Albiniak Event: Policy Debate Background: debated at the University of Redlands for 4 years, coached at San Francsico State for 3, assistant director at USC for 3, and now UT-Austin grad school/coach - 6 years teaching at the University of Texas National Insititute of Forensics.

Judge Philosophy:

Technique matters most to me. Having strategy is important but I am most interested in its tactical execution. Good debaters advance arguments. Great debaters persuade.

I prefer organization and development of arguments. That means: Details matter. Warrants matter. Cross-ex matters. Evidence matters when a claim is contested. "We have a card" is not a warrant for an argument.

Argument "type" is not extremely relevant to me - select the arguments that you are prepared for rather than those that you think I agree with. I obviously have preferences but am interested in seeing how you make sense of the activity, not with advancing my agenda.

I think the activity is at its best when rounds are serious and complex investigations of policy, philosophy, and politics based in literatures and discussions made relevant by and to the resolution.

That means I am less likely to care about miniscule theory debates or avant-garde performances until/unless their relevance is clearly explained and impacted. Then, it's awesome.

Everyone is always learning - I think this is the best place to do it. So that also means if you are super aggressive, chill out. If you are super timid, put yourself out there.