Layton,+Taylor

=** PRELUDE **=

Three things that might help you understand how I think about arguments I hear quite often today:

0. Clash and Paperless. This really is the starting point, and what I notice most about judging in today's landscape. Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, and clash and line by line are dying. Please help. Be selective about what blocks you read, and when, and in what order. Consider only reading a part of them! Use clear signposting and grouping. Explicitly answer your opponents arguments, and god help us, connect to the other humans in the room rather than just reading monotonously into your laptop.

1. (framework) I default to thinking that __debate is both a game, and more than a game.__ You will have a hard time convincing me to think of it differently. I may, however, depending on the round, prioritize thinking of debate as a game or as an (a-)political intervention. Therefore, on framework debates, __make sure you have arguments about both levels of debate, especially the intersection between them, with good impact calculus and comparison of internal links.__

2. (broader impact calculus, fiat critiques, death critiques, nietzsche, other Ks) A real life example of my ethics that might help you understand my inclinations and how you can gain strategic edge: On climate**, __I vacillate between thinking that we need extreme urgent policy action and analysis of policy options__ (roleplaying), __and believing that we are completely screwed and we should dance away at the edge of the abyss__** whilst completely overfishing - (if we don't get to eat that sushi, the fish gon' die from ocean acidification anyways).* I'm persuaded by both**.** __The team that has the most specific analysis defending their speech, their activity, their (a-)political intervention, tends to win, regardless of what that analysis defends, regardless of what my virtual ballot //actually// does.__


 * That being said, even though I don't agree, you can impact turn climate or put defense on it and certainly can win in front of me.


 * (Straight up teams: please cut specific defense of policy analysis, discourse, and representations about china, about your advantages, about your affirmative. The more specific your arguments, the better. Believe it or not, there is actually case specific evidence about role playing and representations, you just need to find it. If you don't have evidence, at least make an argument. Fiat isn't a magic wand, it's a tool of thought - why should I apply that tool to the problematic of the 1ac, for these two hours, in this round, today.)**

=**PHILOSOPHY**=

__** I am open to any argument and any style of argumentation. **__ I coach a largely critical team, which means I quite often enjoy a good straight up CP, DA, and case debate.

That being said, I think their are certain types of argumentation that are much more likely to be consistently persuasive than others. __Impact and defend all your claims no matter what they are (__even if your argument is impacts bad! Ah, the truth there is no truth)__;__ standards on topicality or theory, the impact to your politics da, or the relationship between the permutation and the k alternative. Do not feel constrained, but realize that if you stray from such argumentative standards, say through performance, it should not be without reason, prudence, and thoughtfulness. Topicality and theory are fine, but typically I have a hard time voting affirmative on theory unless the voters are sufficiently explained throughout the round, not only in the 2ar. Good theory debates are time intensive.

Give the best speech you can give, but if you give a shorter speech and/or don't use all your prep time I will reward your speaker points.

__Don't steal prep, don't be an asshole, don't be discriminatory.__ In extreme cases, I reserve the right to vote without consideration of argumentation and content but simply based on my ethical judgment of your behavior (i've never had to do this). Debate should be friendly; we shouldn't have elaborate rules (that lock in inequality) but we should have mutual respect for one another and their right to be seen and heard. I have been known to interrupt cross-x and prep when I notice such behavior, don't take it personally or get fazed.

I haven't been involved in the community for a few years and do not appreciate the cliquish cults that can come up around author names, argument titles, schools and reputations. Perhaps I am lamenting my own distance and separation from debate, but I think it's more a revulsion to the simple, name dropping tendencies we can have. __Explain things in words or it doesn't count.__

Last Note: I time prep time until the jump drive leaves the computer. I have done this due to the high frequency of people stealing prep while speeches are being jumped and transferred. Hopefully I don't always have to do this, but debaters inevitably seem to steal their prep. [stealing prep, cutting cards, etc., as well as rudeness and inhospitality are quick ways to lose points, or worse. As mentioned, I'm open to any arguments, including a hypothetical defense of clipping cards, but such arguments definitely fall into the irregular arguments that must be executed with much thought and care]

__** Feel free to ask any questions, including questioning my judge philosophy if you think that I am unjust. **__

=BONUS POST SCRIPT=

A few things that generally get __higher speaker points:__

The most serious: knowing your arguments, knowing your opponent's arguments. You should sound good and execute with ethos. Connect with me as a judge and look for my (mis)understanding/affinities in my body language. The next serious: Kindness, support to your opponents and your partner, a sense of community. The inverse is a very serious way to lose speaker points. Slightly trivial: Taking less speech time and knowing when you are repetitive. __**The trivial:**__ Which actually isn't that trivial. I like humor. Well included lyrics. Cultural references. References to decorations in the room. Anything that separates this round from some other. One day I may have an explicit system for how to incentivize these trivialities, but for now, just do them because they make you a more interesting debater, and i like interesting debate.

=ABOUT=

I debated at West High in Utah, competed at the TOC, debated at Northwestern U for a few years before stopping my competitive career. Then I coached for a few more years in college, then stopped to get a double master's in special and elementary education. Now, after a few years out of the activity, I'm coaching.