Traub,+Tyler

I debated for 4 years at Lakeville North High School in Lakeville, MN. I debated on the national circuit for 2 years and the local MN circuit for 4 years. I had some success but never broke through to the next level. I would break at most national tournaments I attended but didn't win many out rounds. I coached for one year at George Washington High School in Denver, Colorado and 3 years at Lakeville. I was the head coach at lakeville in 2013. I graduated in 2008.

This has gotten way too long and old and needs a serous edit but I don't have the time to do it before minneapple 14.

Here is what I want in a debate. I want a topical debate in between an average and fast pace. I rarely judge on the circuit and I'm not a great flower.

I like good theory as a check to abusive positions.

Please slow down on card authors.

Feel free to ask about anything before the round.

LONG VERSION and really old. I like the debate to take place on two levels not including framework and definitions. Normally both of these happen before the standard but i dont want to steal your persuasive speaking style, researched topic literature, or philosophical framework with the line by line. I really do like it when a coherent, persuasive ballot story develops. Just make sure to signpost and keep it clear what level the debate is currently happening on so I can flow it there.

The criterion (standards and burdens are fine) I WOULD MOST LIKE TO VOTE ON AN EXTENSION FROM EACH OF THESE. Substantive debate on the contention level

It is very nice when both AFF and NEG have standards or criterions with substantive case arguments. Lets talk about the arguments and have some CLEAR CLASH. As I can clearly separate arguments when i flow electronically I EXTEND EACH SPECIFIC ARGUMENT it makes it much easier on me when you clearly number your rebuttal analytics and sub-point your case cards/analytics.

PRE STANDARDS You must explain why any apriori or pre-standard arguments come before the standards. And please label them as such. If your opponents off case doesn't have an explanation for how it functions above or in relation to the standards, point it out. Absent those arguments, I evaluate which weighing mechanism has won in the round. I then evaluate the round based on which arguments like best back to that standard thus it is probably best for you to link your contentions to your opponents standard if possible. Explicit links are always nice.

RANDOM AND SPEAKS

I feel conflicted about speaker points in this day and age. I do believe they are inflated but I think I am only hurting the debaters I judge if I try and change this. My solution is to only give 30s if you truly blow me away but be very willing to give 29.5s to good debaters. My speaks are generally between 27 and 29 for the winner. I will deduct 1 speak if you dont flow the 2ar. Its rude.

I do like a traditional case style. I am not against non-traditional styles on face but as the judge i do not like to do a lot of work to vote for one debater. If your case doesnt follow a traditional style make sure you clearly explain all the steps your case has to prove to uphold or deny the resolution. I feel that if you make your case too confusing simply to trick your opponent it hurts you by confusing the judge as well. A hard decision doesn't mean I'm confused. Its awesome if both debaters debated to their potential. This paragraph is mainly to emphasize that I want to hear a decision calculus for the round. THIS IS MORE THAN LISTING 13 PLACES FOR ME TO VOTE. Order them in importance. Tell me how your arguments interact, build on each other and relate to your opponents (Weighing).

I would like to make it clear that I really do not like to vote for things that I do not understand. Its hard for me to understand super dense and complicated philosophy that I am unfamiliar with. Just because you have put in the many hours it takes to understand a whole position doesn't mean you can translate that knowledge in a debate round. Remember your job as a debater is to show the judge who can do the better debating.

Each debate has its own context. As such my preferences do not apply to every round and it would be non-sensical to think that they do. I do my best to adjudicate the round the way both debaters tell me to do so. In other words, I want the debaters to write the RFD.

THEORY I look to competing interpretations. This gives me arguments on the flow to compare.

I dont think theory needs a reason to come pre standard. Either im rejecting the debater ( In this case the reason for rejecting the debater is why it comes before the standard for me. ) OR Im rejecting the argument ( in this case the theory stands as terminal defense to that argument)

I do not like when people run theory simply because you don't want to debate the actual arguments. This will cause you to lose speaker points. I am not the judge to pull out theory in front of just because you like theory. As the abuse, or potential abuse, becomes less obvious, your odds of me liking the theory become less. Because theory is asking me to create a new rule about debate or adhere to a unwritten rule that I all ready believe in, I reserve the right to reject absurd theory.

I believe that theory exists in LD to make debate better. However it is not something that all have had experience with. I have seen debaters with the intuitive knowledge to defeat a theory argument without the technical skills or knowledge of how to attack it at a line by line basis. If the discussion about what the "rules" of debate should be is happening but not necessarily with the correct line by line of a theory shell, I will evaluate the theory debate on who made the more compelling argument. Nowadays the only instructions the ballot gives me is to evaluate who did the better debating which to me is the most compelling argument. If you agree with me that theory is there to make LD better then I think you would agree with me on the issue of how to evaluate it.

I know I said I look to competing interpretations and then talked about why I like reasonability but I think the fairest way to adjudicate theory is to look to competing interpretations when its clear both debaters know how to debate theory and when they both know what it is. If its clear one person in the round has no idea what theory is I do look to reasonability but there must be a compelling reason why the rule about debate doesnt matter, or why the abuse isnt happening for me to reject the theory. I guess what im trying to say is I will forgive a new theory debater for not attaching theory responses to the proper point of the theory if they are making all the proper responses.

I was never a theory debater but I believe that in order for it to serve its purpose it must be accessible to all. I think theory can also level the playing field if it is accessible to all.

Feel free to ask about any specific things before the round.