[eDebate] James "JT" Taylor Judging Philosophy--revised

J T jtedebate
Mon Nov 26 21:12:20 CST 2007

I have made some changes to my judging philosophy...even if I have judged you many times, please re-read.  It is printed below (formatting jacked though) and up on debate results

  Taylor, James "JT?                                                                                                             Emporia State  University
  # of years coaching/judging:   13                                                                                        # of rounds on topic: lots 
  Voting record: close to 50-50
  TOPICALITY: I really like smart T debates with good contextual evidence. If you are going Kritik T, then do it well
I want to hear a K of the very notions of ground, fairness, education, & predictability.  I hate it when teams just arbitrarily scream about exclusion
or that every half-ass kritikal aff wants to make their case a metaphor for how bad T is
I have seen this done well VERY few times
Don?t try to bring it with the same old tired Bleiker et al evidence...I am more persuaded by Shively?s congruence of basic terms as a precondition for meaningful debate
So if  you are going to K ?T?, REALLY bring it
I do not think T is genocidal or particularly oppressive.  
  SPEC/THEORY ARGS: I?ll vote here if you win. I evaluate these in an offense/defense paradigm. Warrants and comparative analysis as to who accesses what offense and how is more important
i.e., who has the better inroads into education/competitive equity.  I would much rather vote on something that was even slightly intellectually compelling.
  ?KRITIKS?: For some time, I have taken great care to be a fair an objective critic.  I try very hard to separate my personal views and biases from the arguments and debates I evaluate.  However, people think this means they should (can, therefore should) run/do whatever
play music, dance, leave the room and go protest (a Todd Jordan special!), etc.  I am not opposed to any of this.  Utilized well, these can be effective vehicles for garnering judge identification and enjoyment, as well as understanding of your argument.  However, that does not mean I want to hear/see a ?performance? that has nothing to do with the topic. If you win your argument, I?ll vote for you regardless
.I just long for a good CP-disad debate.  
  If you do anything with costumes, silent meditation, act out a skit
I?m probably not the judge for you.  Although I would say I am a fan of ?the K?, I see too few rounds were they are executed well.  Here are a few tips:
  1. Unless you have real game, I would prefer to hear something else.  I dislike generic Ks of IR without a specific link (gotta at least have something close to the Aff.), unless the link is something based on discourse in the round (like sexist language). Stale and uninteresting Ks just make me want to vote on crappy framework args.  
  2. Engage the case. I think most teams underutilize the case debate as a means for garnering links, alt. solvency and perm answers.  Also, it is not entirely inconsistent (depending on the args) to say they don?t solve or make the SQ worse
an ?even if? story. It?s also strategically advantageous in terms of 2AC depth and coverage.
  3. I am a critic of argument. Be wary of asking me to personally or ethically endorse your position.  Either I agree with you because you have persuaded me to change my views or they are already the same and the other team failed, OR you lose because you did not persuade me to adopt your particular ethics/intellectual endorsement.  However, I do think I can intellectually endorse an argument about ethics, etc. under the banner of ?critic of argument?. The distinction is whether or not you want to stake the round on personally persuading an often anti-humanist, nihilistic, contradictory, cranky and abrasive person

  4. Not really a fan of:  Baudrillard, Lacan, Mann, Nihilism (but if you have game go for it). I?m actually warming up to Zizek a bit.  I have voted for many teams that just abused the other with Zizek.
  CPs: PICs are good, conditionality is ?cheating?, but no one ever goes for conditionality bad after the block?I think dispo solves the offense. Utopian? Sure
as long as you can justify it, but I would much prefer a tight PIC or case/plan specific CP
You?re all good to CP out of one advantage and impact turn the others. I think a 2AC should be able to concede a K that links to the CP as offense, or that it is just not a net benefit.  Love the straight turn option
If you run things like Gregorian calendar, ?the? or E-Prime type of PICs
it is in these instances where I will lean toward PICs Bad
  CASE: I LOVE a good case debate. It seems a waste to just ignore the case, unless you have a CP that solves 100%.  Unless it is a new case, you should have a well-crafted strategy/case hit by 2nd semester. ?But we only debate the K??well you should have specific Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Poppy, etc. links by now.  I?m quite comfortable giving out high speaks to a team that gives me a good case debate
  ISSUES/TOPICS: I?m a long-time advocate for discussion on space exploration issues. Only public discussion can secure a place in space relatively free from military and corporate domination. Your one-shot nuclear war will NOT cause extinction. I also like debates involving: heg, political dissent, democracy, China, Indigenous issues and crazy technologies. Whatever you do (and I?m certainly open to ?alternative? forms/conceptions of debate), I think you should engage the topic/aff.  I really like good country specific internal politics disads and attack Iran good (but not for ideological reasons?it?s an incredibly well-developed debate).
  MY FAVORITES:  There have been a few debaters I have found to be both incredible and enjoyable debaters to watch. Here a some from the past few years that I have judged (now graduated):  Sarah Holbrook (still my favorite!), Malcolm Gordon, Gabe Murillo, Michael Klinger, Blake Johnson, Connor Cleary, Jas & Kip Brar, Sara Apel, Dave Peterson, Jessica Yeats, Matt Cormack, Nirav Patel, Johnny Prieur, Paul Mabrey and Stacey Nathan
.maybe this will give a clue to the above statements
If you are not on here then your check bounced! 
  SPEAKS:  I have tempered my speaker points a bit. Overall, they are slightly lower than previous years.  But I have no problem dropping great speaks on someone who is smart, funny, smooth, or devastating. Good speakers are rewarded.  
  OTHER FYIs:  Speed is good, but so is clarity. I truly hate it when teams just dump a ton of off-case & wait for the other team to drop something
that?s just a bad JV round. Humor is very good. You should look up and check my expressions
they will tell you a lot. Sorry in advance if you say something ridiculous and I laugh out loud.  Despite this, I prefer debates that are respectful of everyone in the room.  R.E.S.P.E.C.T. your judgements!  My cat?s name is Bubbha.


Asst. Debate Coach
Emporia State University
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071126/1850b05a/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list