Taylor,Rylee

Rylee Taylor

Graduated from West Career and Technical Academy (NV)

Now attending University of Nevada, Las Vegas as a Policy Debater

Third Year in College Policy Debate

3 Years of Experience in Judging High School Policy Debate

Some Experience Judging Lincoln Douglas Debate

Quick Version

I am willing to evaluate any arguments that you make, as long as you explain it and do it well. There is no need to change your arguments to something you think I like or will vote on, just give me the best debate you can, using your best arguments, and you will be fine. I will do my very best to keep my own personal opinions out of the round, and judge everything as fairly as possible without injecting myself into the round. I am familiar with the HS topic this year as I assist in coaching local Las Vegas teams and was a Lab Leader at the Rebel Debate Institute this summer.

Long Version

I will attempt to be as neutral as possible and evaluate the arguments presented in the debate independent of my own opinions. Keep in mind that debate is facilitated by fiat, the mutual agreement that we will discuss whether or not the plan should be done. Fiat is concerned with the merits of the affirmative plan. Playing this game is an ideal forum for us to educate ourselves, have fun, and train the opinion leaders and policy makers of the future.

Negative strategy – I believe in preserving maximum strategic and theoretical flexibility for negative teams. Contradicting arguments early on in the debate are fine as long as it is narrowed down in the negative block and the 2NR is consistent. Though too many contradicting arguments (3+) will make me more sympathetic to the affirmative.

Affirmative strategy -I think more affirmative teams should straight (link or impact) turn disadvantages. A good 1AR should attempt to make the 2NR; job difficult by reading plenty of evidence, covering, and always using offense. For the 1AR and 2AR I think it is important to EXTEND WARRANTS inside your evidence. You should explain the importance/relevance/ implications of the evidence as well. Just saying “extend our Johnson ’12 card,” does not count as extending the evidence!

Critical arguments: I am willing to vote on the K, as long as it is well explained and specific to the aff. Your Kritik should have an alt and impact that actually makes sense and is explained by the negative. I am not familiar with all critical arguments, but I have had minor experience with a wide variety, Cap and Ableism/Rationality are the two arguments I am must familiar with. Good alt explanation can resolve any lack of knowledge I have. The affirmative should always permutate critical arguments, and explain how the perm works.

CPs—Huge fan of counterplans, feel free to run multiple if you would like. The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and I hold them to as high a standard as I do the affirmative plan. I do not think that a negative team should be afraid to add a CP in the 2NC (it is a constructive, aff gets a CX, and the risk of a straight turn in the 1AR should check any abuse). These 2NC counter plans could be used to make external impact turns or uniqueness takeouts go away.

Disadvantages- Needs to be specific to the Aff and link story should make sense. Make sure to emphasize the way the aff links and the impacts it triggers.

Topicality- All for it, I feel that it is a very strategic argument to be made in debate. Needs to be well articulated with both sides submitting competing interpretations. T arguments should be extremely structured and organized to make it easier for me to see why this is a voting issue.

Speaker Points- I probably give higher speaker points than most judges, you should be clear and able to explain your arguments well. I enjoy jokes and clever analogies that are relevant to the round and arguments being made.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5135px;">Few other things-
 * 1) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5135px;">Do not steal prep!!!! I do not take time for flashing, but when the team that took prep calls time, everyone else should pause until the speech is handed over and begins.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5135px;">I may call for cards after the debate, if it was not well explained in the debate or was a point of contention.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5135px;">Debate should be fun; it is a game so be nice and courteous to everyone involved.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5135px;">If you would like something explained further, please feel free to ask me some questions before the round.