Taylor,+Zachary

Updated: 2/5/12

As much as judges love to lay out all their nuances, I know that 90% of the people reading this are probably 1. in a hurry because postings were just put up or 2. pouring through dozens, if not hundreds, of these for judge prefs. Thus, I’m going to try to write a long, in depth-paradigm that is formatted to make it easy to skim. I’ll divide it into sections, underline some key things, and put a summary at the end.


 * A little about me:** I went to a small, Jewish high school in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania called Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy. It once had a decent team that was active on the local circuit, but this shrank into a class seniors would take just to get credit, go to 3 tournaments a year in JV, and not try too hard. After my freshman year, I went to camp and actually learned what I was doing, but by that time, I was essentially the only one left. Despite many failed recruitment attempts, my dad and I traveled independently. I attended [|NDF]twice, and was successful both locally (with a state championship Junior year), and at the NFL national tournament (placing twice, 12th place Junior year). **__I qualified for (but did not attend) the TOC with 3 bids senior year. So yes, I know what I’m doing.__** But I also remember what it was like as an independent debater before I had the resources of the national circuit (or, as [|Jim Menick] would write, $ircuit), which gives me a bit of a uniquely balanced perspective on the culture war. Christian Tarsney coached me for the last 1.5 years of my career.


 * What I like and don’t like in a debate:** In a nutshell, quality over quantity. If your warrants aren’t solid, little else is going to matter. It’s better to have fewer, nuanced arguments then just a long list of them. Focus on the interaction of arguments, and instead of just trying to win them all, show me why yours are the most important (whether that means weighing impacts or paying attention to philosophical nuances.) Debate is a game of logic; I like approaches that think outside of the box, as long as they make sense. If you want to win your standard and win the links to it, cool. If you want to concede standards and win links to the other person’s, cool too. If you want to extend an argument with the implication that we ought to re-interpret their standard, that’s great, as long as it actually works. **__I’m still going to go by the flow and not intervene, but it will certainly help to appeal to my preferences.__** The reason they’re my preferences is because I think they tend to be universally good things for debate.


 * What I think about debate theory:** Debate is a logical game, and the only conceptual paradigm I know of that makes sense of all the arguments we use is truth-testing. This means that at the end of the day I’m going to look at the flow, figure out the logical conclusion of the arguments that are being won, and whether that affirms or negates. (However, I'm also a compatabilist vis a vis comparative worlds. For a lot of resolutions, it makes sense to say "moral principle x is true if x would be a good universal rule" and I'll give you that link by default unless your opponent makes a point of challenging it, in which case it's up to you to debate.) So, you can run disads and stuff; you can even run plans and counter-plans since those are just specifying the moral obligation; you just have to use those plans or CPs to prove the resolution true/false. However, my version of truth-testing doesn’t give you carte blanche to run 15 a-prioris, skep, or anything else in your expando. The entire point of picking a topic is to limit the truth that we are examining. (And, given the limited amount of time per round, that allows more in-depth debate both in terms of arguments made and arguments prepped for.) Whatever assumptions the negative chooses to challenge should be topical (using the term in a very loose sense). I.e., an attack on [|moral realism] would be appropriate if the topic is about universal human rights but not if it’s about juvenile justice. So, you could call me a “restricted truth-tester.”

As for “theory” in the in-round sense**__: Don’t use it unless you really think you’re being abused, and if that’s the case, don’t kick it, go for it. Theory is a necessary check on abuse, but the fundamental determiner of abuse is the judge.__** Otherwise, people 1. start using theory as a tactic (undermining its role) 2. start combining theory with abusive arguments and 3. fill their abusive cases with theory spikes (I also think unnecessary theory is a boring and uneducational waste of time, but that’s just me.) I will flow all your arguments, but in the end **__I’ll decide the theory not based on a line-by-line but based on who persuaded me more.__** Call it "intervention" if you will, but running theory is already asking the judge to intervene. So, don’t waste your time dumping on the fairness voter, and don’t think that your superior technical skills and that VBI “theory week” are going to let you get away with whatever you want. I will not only listen to RVIs; I encourage them if you really think the theory is wrong. And if you are going to run theory, please make it a bit slower than other argumentation.
 * __The only times I’ll judge a theory debate based on a line-by-line is when either 1. both debaters seem to really want to get into theory for the sake of theory or 2. part of the topic is genuinely ambiguous.__** (Yes, I //know// there’s no brightline for ambiguous but all the alternatives are worse.) In those circumstances, I wouldn’t like to see RVIs or theory-as-a-voter, and I’d like the debaters to spend as much time on substance as possible. And, in all cases, please be explicit as to whether you think theory is a gateway issue/comes first.

__**Since I'm a**__ (pseudo)__**-truth-tester, I don't see T as a form of theory.**__ It functions as defense (often as terminal defense) because it means your opponent's arguments aren't actually proving the resolution true. A fairness voter is thus not necessary. Fairness (and education) arguments can be made to support one textual interpretation over another, but I see those as reasons to prefer, not as links to a voter.

Speed was not something I was originally a fan of as a debater, but I gradually became accustomed to it, and even started to find slow debates boring**__. I prefer hearing debates__** that are faster than conversational (or even faster than “brisk” conversational) but not full-out “policy-style” spreading. I think I can comprehend up to 400-some words-per-minute, but would like to hear something **__in the low 300s.__** Please make sure to **__be clear__** (if you request it, I can call “clear” once or twice) **__and start off slow and accelerate to your top speed over the first 10 seconds.__** Since I don’t like to see smart, slow debaters loose simply because of speed (and since I think things like speed should be secondary to learning about the topic) my compromise is this: **__The faster you go, the higher burden I’ll have for extensions and warrants. If it’s clear your opponent can’t keep up with your speed, it’ll probably hurt your speaks.__** If I miss something on the flow and I think I screwed up I’ll call the card/part of the case, but if you’re just going too fast for me to feel comfortable catching it, I won’t count it.
 * My personal knowledge/limitations:** I know the basics of philosophy, usually find it interesting, and may be minoring in it in college. That means I’ll follow your arguments, unless you’re running something critical, bizarre, or overly jargon-laden. I’ll do my best to follow, but it’s your burden to make sure the cards have internal warrants that could at least theoretically be understood by someone who hasn’t heard it before. I think it may be the case that a lot of interesting philosophy can’t be properly carded, which is sad, but so be it. If you do run something off the wall in a way that makes sense, I’ll probably reward you with high speaks. I’m majoring in international relations, so if you want to get in a realism/liberalism/constructivism debate, I’ll definitely be able to follow.


 * In a nutshell:**

1. I will vote based on the flow (with respect to proving the resolution true or false), except for theory debates, or if you’re truly offensive. Certain types of pre-fiat arguments run a high risk of this. Don't defame anyone's character unless they truly deserve it, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

2. Focus on quality over quantity when it comes to arguments, but if you can do both, go for it. I can handle a few notches under top circuit/policy speed, as long as you’re clear and you ease into the speed. But I will hold you to higher standards the faster you go, and if you’re debating someone who clearly can’t handle it, don’t go too much faster than them.

3. Only go for theory if you think you’re really being abused, and stick to it. If you think your opponent’s theory is wrong, I encourage RVIs. I hate theory for the sake of theory, but if you must (because the topic is ambiguous) don’t let it be more than one piece of the debate.

4. Crystallization is always good, but if you think there are a lot of levels you could be winning the debate on, don’t be afraid to have a lot of voting issues, as long as it’s clear. As a debater, I always hated doing a great strategic job layering a debate only to have to give most of it up because the judge was lazy and wanted a simple last speech.


 * __5. This paradigm is a work-in-progress so if there’ anything you think I should add or clarify, please, please do ask!__** I can be emailed at Zachary.Taylor@jbha.org or contacted through [|facebook]. You could even use the [|discussion]section of this page.