Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.
My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com
About me (If you care)
I debated at Jenks high school for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. During my time at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD.
General Debate Things
1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.
2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.
3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.
4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision.
5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.
6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.
Trad Lincoln-Douglas Debate/OK debate
1. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive effect on who wins my vote, i.e., if you're winning, the aff leads to extinction, but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.
2. For godsakes, don't miss match your framework to your arguments. For example, don't read a Kant framing, then read a bunch of extinction impact and util arguments. I will make a big sad face.
3. If your framework is virtually the same as your opponents, agree to use the same framing, and let's move on with the round. Critiquing a framework that is the same as your own with slightly different wording makes no sense.
4. Please clash with your opponent's arguments. If you don't, I might go to sleep.
5. I am totally fine with Progressive argumentation, as I have debated at progressive tournaments and judged enough policy rounds at this point, and honestly, soon enough, that's where I think all of LD will land. However, if you are using progressive arguments to confuse a traditional LDer to get an advantage, and it's super apparent, I'm probably not going to be very happy.
OKLAHOMA SPECIFIC LD
Honestly, the bar has been set so incredibly low that if the round is borderline enjoyable, I will probably hand out max speaks.....
If your strat is to read as many arguments as possible and pray that your opponent drops a few I'm probably gonna want to punch you in the face like for real, come on this is trad LD. 4 arguments a subpoint/contention MAX...
Your case should be filled with the very basic stock issues and general arguments for the resolution. Almost anything outside of that turns out to be handled and used like absolute garbage.
If I stop flowing the round after the 1ar, it's usually not a good sign, and I'm probably checked out because either the round won't be close at that point, or it's gone completely off the rails, and I don't even want to bother to give the effort to sort it all out.
Public Forum Debate
1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to Util for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.
2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. It looks lazy, shady, and unethical.
3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you weigh and crystalize at the end of the round, you will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.
Policy Debate
1. Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm.
2. My speed threshold is about a 7/10 if you give me a doc I will be fine. Please slow down on analytics though if I can't hear them I won't flow them.
3. It is essential that you have a clear roadmap and that you stick to it. The worst thing you can do is confuse me about what you're responding to.
4. Just because I'm not familiar with everything in the policy world doesn't mean I should stop you from reading an argument as that is unfair to you but be aware that you might need to do more explaining than usual if your reading something I could be unfamiliar with.
5. Open cross is fine.
6. If you have questions about my policy paradigm, please ask before the round.
Prefs
1. Policy- Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I really enjoy case debates something that needs to be done way more. When you are reading your perms actually take the 5 seconds to explain how it functions.
2. Topicality- Topicality is fun..... Until it's not. T feels more like a throwaway off-case position, especially as the violations continue to get more and more ridiculous. Not saying you have to go for it if you read it but I would like to feel like I know your T might be a legit way to the ballot rather than knowing it's just gonna be a time suck within the first 5 seconds your into reading the T.
3. Theory- I find theory to be super boring mostly because it just turns into both teams reading their generic block files that I have heard for the thousandth time. That's not to say I won't vote on it. I have voted for speed theory and condo at some points although I usually prefer to drop the argument and not the team. I'm very iffy on out-of-round theory violations being read I.E (the opposing team did something bad before the round started so you are now reading theory). Once again not that I wouldn't vote on it but I just don't really have an objective view on what happened because likely I wasn't there ofc this isn't considering screenshots for a disclosure shell or something like that.
4. K's- My experience with Ks has grown over the year still not my first preference to hear but I generally feel comfortable with them. Explain how the alt functions and have a clear ROB; you should be fine. If you reading something really abstract your gonna have to explain it more to me but I can catch on pretty fast.