Taylor,+Laurel

Laurel Taylor, Judging Philosophy

I believe that debate is all about making good arguments that you can back up with evidence. I vote for whichever team makes the better argument backed up by the most reliable evidence. I do not have a disdain for any particular arguments, as long as they are well explained and make sense. I am open to both the more philosophical side of debate as well as politically focused arguments. Either way, I expect debaters to explain why their arguments should win them the round and why any theory arguments are important enough to win the round. I am open to topicality arguments but generally expect a pretty good explanation as to why the topicality violation is a big enough deal to cost the affirmative the round. But I also feel strongly that the judge is simply an objective evaluator of a round—so I try my best to not complete the dots for debaters. If I don’t have a clear understanding of why something is important or unimportant, I will place only as much weight on it as I am told to by the speakers. Basically, give me a good argument and tell me how your case or negative strategy wins you the round. And—I feel strongly that debate should be an incredibly civilized event, so I have a low tolerance for rude or needlessly aggressive tactics.

Coaching Experience: Head Coach, T.C. Williams High School, Alexandria, Virginia (2009-present) Previous Debate Experience: High School debate in Arkansas, college debate at Missouri State University Education: B.A., Missouri State University; M.A., Middle Tennesse State University (English)