Wofford,+Taylor

Taylor Wofford Judge Paradigm

I debated for Jesuit College Prep in high school. That should give you some idea of what sorts of arguments I like and dislike. I try to stick to my flow as much as possible, but I’m not an android, and debate is a speech activity: if your speech isn’t good enough to overcome my inherent biases against a certain argument, then you don’t deserve to win. I will try to listen to almost any argument, however. Just know that I have different thresholds for voting on different things. My threshold for voting on a counterplan and disads is quite low, for instance. My threshold for voting on most theory arguments is quite high.

Topicality: I don’t really default to competing interpretations or reasonability. In order to win T as the neg, you need to win the following: that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate T, that your interpretation is the best for debate, and that the aff violates it. Alternately, you can still win T even if you’re losing competing interpretations by winning that the aff isn’t reasonably topical, though this is more of an uphill battle. As the aff, you need to win that you are reasonably topical or that your interpretation is best for debate and that you meet it. I don’t feel bad voting on T, as some judges seem to.

Theory: I like theory less than I like T, if only because it seems that debaters mostly use it as cheap, quick, generic offense. I think I’m less likely than most judges to vote on dropped cheapshot theory arguments. The bottom of the ballot says, “The better debating was done by:,” not “The team that dropped the fewest theory arguments was:.” If I think that you’re doing the better debating, I am less inclined to vote on a dropped theory argument, unless a substantial amount of work is done on it in the last rebuttal. And by substantial, I mean a good three minutes, at least. I will reject the argument, and not the team, by default. The more I agree with a theory argument, the more willing I am to vote on it, and vice versa. As for individual arguments, ask me before the round. If you don’t ask, and you choose to go for a theory argument that I absolutely hate, don’t be mad at me when you lose.

CPs/DAs: I enjoy these debates, though I think many teams have a tendency to become so bogged down in the line-by-line that they fail to see the big picture. Be sure to take into account how each of your disads interacts with all the others, and with the advantages. In order for me to vote on a counterplan, it must provide a reason why the plan is a bad idea, not simply prove that the counterplan is a better idea. I tend to evaluate counterplans and DAs in an offense/defense framework, but that’s up for debate. I dislike intrinsicness arguments on disads. Of course a rational policymaker wouldn’t let this thing happen, but this is CX debate, and none of this stuff is really rational.

Kritiks: Believe it or not, I don’t read critical literature for fun, so don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. I’m more-or-less familiar with the ideas of the following people: Foucault, Nietzsche, Butler, Zizek, Heidegger, etc. Baudrillard confounds me. If your analysis and your evidence make sense, I will vote for it. That said, I think the negative must win that the role of the ballot is something other than to endorse the best policy option. On K debates, I really enjoy good examples. For example, can you give me an example of a way that capitalism co-opts alternative movements? Where might I see something like this in my day-to-day life? Can you give me an example in which //removing// troops from somewhere was used to “securitize” that somewhere? Since these are pretty high philosophical concepts, it helps me to be able to visualize this stuff with anecdotes.

Case: Do it. I love nothing more than voting neg on case turns. A robust case debate is my favorite thing. As the aff, don’t simply assume that extending your 1AC evidence without actually answering the case arguments is enough to win on this flow.

Other stuff:

Some arguments I strongly dislike, so please do not read them in front of me: O-Spec (A-Spec is borderline, I don’t like it but I will evaluate it), Wipeout (including the various scenarios, such as A-life, particle accelerators, etc.), Malthus, any other argument ending in “-spec.” If you read racism good, rape good, etc., I will vote you down immediately and give you 25s. I think most performance affs are badly done/not strategic, but I will listen to them unless they make me very uncomfortable. In other words, please keep all of your clothes on.

On analysis vs. evidence: Both of these are very important, obviously. However, I will prefer analysis over evidence. I think debate is a communication activity, and thus you need to communicate arguments to me. If you only extend evidence without providing any analysis, you leave it up to me to decide whether or not I think you’ve done sufficient work in previous speeches to warrant me evaluating that evidence for you. Your evidence supports your analysis, not the other way around.

On tech: I am beginning to seriously hate paperless debating. This is my new policy: your prep time ends as soon as your flash drive leaves your laptop. It’s up to you to make sure your flash drive is in good order and the other team can quickly and easily locate your files. They can do this while you give the order, or after your speech is finished. If there is trouble opening the file, that time comes out of your prep. Debate rounds take so much longer now because teams waste so much time messing around on their computers. Furthermore, you don’t have a right to have all of your opponent’s evidence in your hand before he or she begins speaking. After they are done, you have the right to see their evidence, but don’t start whining because you can’t open the file before the speech even starts. That’s what flowing is for. If you’re seriously wasting a bunch of time, I will deduct from your speaker points.

On speaker points: I give bad ones, apparently. I think my scale is fair, but I don’t give relative speaker points. In other words, a 29 is a 29 no matter what tournament I’m at or how good the competition is this year. Thus, my scale:

30: the heavens open up when you speak. If the heavens didn’t open up, you don’t get a 30. Take it up with God. 29.5-29: This was an excellent speech, with only a few minor or technical issues. You did everything you needed to do to win this debate. 28.5-28: This speech was pretty good. There might have been a few problems. This is still better than average. 27.5-27: 27.5 is slightly above average, 27 is average. 26.5-26: Needs improvement. You made some big error, conceded something important, etc. This is the kind of speech that loses you the debate. 25.5-25: You dropped T in the 2AC. At no point in your rambling, incoherent speech were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points (well, 25), and may God have mercy on your soul.