Almond,+Taylor

Lone Peak High School 09-12 Assistant Coach at West Jordan High School Bad at Debate

I want to hear more from y'all, the debaters, before and after the round. This is my judge philosophy; whats your debater philosophy? How's the tournament? Is there anything you want me to know; a way we can accommodate your needs? Did you think me decision was correct, or well informed?

Do what you gotta do. I'm interested in hearing something you think is important - an honestly formulated and informed perspective - more than a particular method.

I usually went for policy oriented strategies; in LD and PF and CX. It was the style available to me - honestly, I didn't do enough work to do anything besides that thoughtfully. I’m no more interested in it than any other debate style: they're are all necessary depending on whether your arguments content calls for it. Plus, I enjoy clash of civilization debates - I think they're important (as long as they get past framework/theory arguments, they're less fun for me).

__The following are defaults that I'll ignore if contrary arguments are made:__

I'll try and keep myself out of the decision.

Dropped arguments are true if you tell me about them. Please explain why that argument being true is important; how it affects other positions you take.

Reject the argument, not the team.

Smart analytics beat bad carded positions.

Condo/Contradictory Flows: What? Buh. Not a fan. I’m receptive to well-developed criticisms of it - usually its a sign of intellectual sloppiness or strategic debauchery rather than a necessary component of the neg. Same goes for internal consistency.

Theory is tough for me. I find myself zoning out when the theory block is generic.

__The following are defaults that are true //no matter what you say damnit://__

//Comparative// impact calculus is the basis of good policy debate positions – Disads, Topicality, Theory, K’s, CP’s, Case, all of them. That's usually not the case with less consequentialist evaluative frameworks.

Calling for Evidence: If there is a dispute about what some piece of evidence actually claims, and you explicitly tell me to read it after the round, then I will. But I’d rather not. Things get messy when I start reading evidence. My shortsighted ideas about your evidence get inserted into how I decide your debate; everybody argues with me after the round, I can't articulate why I voted when there's all this tension in the room. It’s a lose-lose-lose situation (or, even worse, a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose situation if I’m on a panel).

Speaker Points: Interesting speeches get good speaker points. Jokes, gutsy/surprising decisions, cool shit in general, and showing how hard you've worked, are ways to make your speech good.

Paperless People: Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer. Tech failure? I get it. We’ll work through this. Also, if the other team doesn't have a computer, please have a good viewing laptop – if it’s the worst, they can probably borrow my laptop for the round.

Paper People: Prep stops when you feel like it. Tech failure? I don’t get it. How do you break flow paper? Please refer to your tubs as “chests” – I want this to be the norm.