Taylor,+Brad

LD Judging Paradigm for Brad Taylor (Barrack Hebrew Academy, Bryn Mawr, PA) September 2010

I'll call myself an open-minded traditionalist. At the lowest level I’ll fall back on the value framework and who is better upholding their side of the resolution. Beyond that I’ll listen to just about anything. I prefer fewer well developed and supported arguments over many less substantial ones. Keep your link story tight. The more links you have to build a thesis or argument, the weaker it becomes. It is expected you understand and present claim/warrant/impact. Warrants are critical – you’ll be vulnerable without good ones.

I prefer cases and arguments focused on the resolution. This is the fair battleground for everyone. If you want to present technical stuff, a string of contingencies, or other less-than-direct approaches, I’ll listen. But last I checked, the rules say you’re here to uphold your side of the resolution. I’ll be easy to sway back to that point.

Please make your arguments clear. You’re supposed to do the heavy lifting here – I should not have to decode what you’re saying. I’ll ignore name dropping, philosopher drive-bys, and argumentation short hand. If someone reading your speech had to read a sentence twice to understand it, then it won’t be convincing when I hear it.

Rebuttals are key for me. Don’t just shuffle around and regurgitate what’s been said in the constructives – provide analysis, re-argumentation, and clarity. And remember, we're not weighing whose evidence is better, rather whose arguments are better. I watched scripted rebuttals take out two good debaters at nationals with questionable judging – this would not be wise as I keep a detailed flow.

I’m OK with speed if you’re OK with clarity (I start missing things somewhere north of 300 words a minute – do the math). If you’re spreading, your opponent is compelled to clash, but I'll allow a spread to be countered by relatively few words. Remember, we’re not counting arguments to determine the winner. The side with the best stuff will prevail over the side with the most stuff. If you can do both, great.

I take a dim view of attempts to carve out a narrow requirement for yourself, or narrow ground for your opponent. You are here to debate, not hide from one. If you want to roll out theory to address fairness or abuse, fine. But the formalism is not mandatory and your opponent can respond conventionally. Make sure the abuse is legitimate, and if it is I’ll vote on it. But I have a low threshold for theory as part of an NC spread strategy and if so can be swayed to the RVI.

Please follow the flow and signpost! Gross repetition is not needed, but please tell me where you are. Your words will be more effectively assimilated into the debate if I don't have to search all over the flow.

I'm a non-interventionist. I'll fill in the obvious: the sky is blue, Kirk would mop the floor with Picard, and the Hobbes you quoted is not Calvin's stuffed tiger. But you have to connect the rest of the dots. If you want it to count, say it.