Coles,+Taylor

Taylor Coles Debated for Mead High School for 4 years and is on the Georgetown Debate Team.

I made this long because I always liked long paradigms when I was debating. The overview is an okay tldr, if you don't want specifics.

Overview: I evaluate debates from the top down. The debate over how I should view the round is the one I resolve first, and I see the rest of the debate through the lens provided by that resolution. I can thus be persuaded to evaluate issues in any number of ways. This style of evaluation necessitates that debates over framework be made explicit. I like debates that reflect matters of genuine intellectual disagreement and I prefer debates that center on a few nexus questions that are well supported by good evidence and analysis. I have significant experience on both sides of the argument divide and I would like to hear the arguments you feel are most strategic in the abstract. Adapt to me in form, not so much in argument choice. I think in terms of offense/defense.

Notes on Presentation: I'm a big fan of effective enunciation. If I can't tell where one word ends and another begins, you might have some problems. Be very clear on theory interpretations etc. I still flow on paper, so remember to give time to switch sheets. I know nothing about the specifics of the current debate topic.

Theory/T: I tend to think conditionality is pretty cool. It is very difficult to persuade me away from competing interpetations as a weighing mechanism. That said, aff/neg flexibility is a real standard in front of me and I tend to take a liberal view of what teams should be prepared to answer. I get the impression that predictability isn't as persuasive to me as a standard as it is to some judges. I don't terribly mind big topics, especially if the arguments that would be included are germane to the issues at hand. I default to reject the argument, not the team. I think plan flaws can be a big deal.

CPs: I think that there are sometimes good reasons that a counterplan could be only functionally or textually competitive, but I default to thinking they should be both. Explain the CP in relation to the net benefit. I really like creativity here. I love PICs.

DAs: I am heavily predisposed to think that uniqueness determines the link. In most circumstances, I don't think of anything as having zero risk. I get that politics is the thing now, but the evidence you hand me shouldn't look like a crossword puzzle, no matter what the argument is. Make sure to keep your link story coherent with the counterplan. CP links to politics is a serious argument for me, given the political capital nonsense y'all are getting away with.

Ks: I have to confess that I am most at home adjudicating K debates. I find them to be the most interesting and engaging debates I judge, partially because good ones reflect areas of deep clash in the evidence, rather than opposing spin applied to equally ambiguous pieces of evidence. This is not to suggest that I think that "critical" teams are ahead in front of me. Tagline jargon doesn't do much for me and I haven't met an __intelligent__ defense of pragmatism I didn't like. As mentioned above, engage framework early and often. If I'm treating your K like a counterplan and disad, you're probably not going to like the outcome. Ks are only real arguments because they challenge the frame of evaluation in some meaningful way. I would like an explicit recognition of that fact. This isn't to suggest that framework is a cut and dry or winner-take-all proposition, but I do think that both sides should be cognizant of the framing of my ballot. Attempts to make the aff a persuasive option in the neg's framework go a long way to justifying the permutation. I have a reasonable grasp of a good part of the literature, but you need to explain your argument. I like to think I'm a reasonably bright guy, give an intelligent account of your author and you'll be fine. A few random things: I don't think that K links to the disad is a slam dunk, it needs to be impacted. Reject the aff is a bad alt. If your K needs to be artificially competitive, it doesn't really link. Mispronouncing Nietzsche is -.5, no exceptions.

Performance/Alternative Styles: I'm fine with however you want to present yourself, but i'm only going to evaluate the arguments you make. I'm not going to vote for you because whatever it was you did was really cool, or really passionate, or whatever. If you don't provide a coherent thesis, i'm going to give the other team a LOT of leeway in interpreting what your position is. I take consistency seriously and I don't think it's fair for teams to have to guess what you meant by that poem/disruption/song. I tend to think switch side is good.

Identity Arguments: I chose to add this section because of some controversies I've seen played out recently. Feel free to introduce arguments based on your own identity, but know that I will not adjudicate them differently. I do not feel beholden to any particular movement or cause in the debate community and I found my experience in debate to be affirming and valuable. I do not feel any guilt about being a white straight male and arguments that suggest that my ability to impartially adjudicate is flawed because of the color of my skin or the amount of cash in my wallet are not very persuasive to me. I will not vote for or against a team because of who they are as people. It saddens me a little to have to make this clarification. I think that there are a lot of interesting ideas surrounding the topic, but I will not enjoy adjudicating attempts to make the debate a referendum on which side was most personally harmed by the current structure of the activity. If you want to make the debate an intellectual one about two competing approaches to race/gender/sexuality etc., even if your critique concludes with a radical position on how the debate should be debated, I think I am a very good judge for you. If you're interested in something else, I will adjudicate impartially by my own lights, but you may be better off with someone else.

Any Bad Arguments?: A good dose of moxie will sell me on anything. I don't care if you're rocking Rand or Time Cube, just take yourself seriously and I'll take you seriously as well. I'll admit different degrees of familiarity with different arguments, but everything's on the table.