Reynolds,+Taylor

I competed in policy for 3 years at Puyallup High School and again at the University of Puget Sound. I have been judging for 10 years, and coaching for 5.

I tend to view myself as Tab "ish" in terms of view the round. What that means to me is that I want you to make the round yours in the way that is most strategic. The "ish" part is that I do have some pre-conceived ideas about debate, which you will find below. The most important thing to do to win my ballot is to tell me three things by the end of the round: what comes first, why it comes first, and where on the flow you win that thing. It could be pre-fiat/discursive arguments, some sort of theory, policy impacts, whatever, as long as you justify your view of the round. If you don't do those three things you leave the round up to chance and I will probably just take the easiest way out. With this, everything is debatable. I'm fine with speed, tag team, etc. as long as your opponent doesn't give me good, warranted reasons why you shouldn't be allowed to do what you are doing.

__My pet peeves__: 1) I feel that an argument has a claim, warrant, and an impact. This is especially important on something you want me to vote on. If you just say "T is a voter for fairness, moving on" I will be hard pressed to vote for it. One sentence is all I need, but it should be there so that I don't have to make the argument for you. 2) I also think that extension is really important. If you don't extend a single impact in the 1ar, I am going to have trouble giving it to you in the 2ar (it's fine if that extension is embedded in other arguments, it doesn't have to be on the case flow). 3) Competition is great, but not to the point of completely disrespecting your opponent or partner; let's help the activity grow, not exclude others. Attack arguments, not people.

__Things that don't matter if you do the above__: Like I said, I want you to make the round yours, but inevitably, I get questions for what I would do if the debaters don't do their job in explaining why they win. On T, I tend to default to competing interpretations. I love K debate, but can be equally happy with an interesting straight up strat, or even good theory. I tend to think that contradictions probably hurt the solvency of your alt and aren't the best strategy. Counterplans should probably be competitive (maybe even more so than just through net benefits, but I don't care too much). Anything else, feel free to ask before round. Like I said, as long as you do your job, I easily move away from this and would rather not default to anything, so just give me a reason to vote for you.