Sanchez,+Taylor

Judge's Name: Sanchez, Taylor High School Graduation Date: 2011 Judge's e-mail: imtaylorsanchez@yahoo.com Experience: - Coach a team - High School debater - College debater - Frequently Judge Rounds Judged this topic: so far, this is my 4th tournament Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 4 Moderately fast Quantity of Arguments: 3 A moderate number Topicality: 3 Moderately Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 1 acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 3 sometimes acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: Assistant Coach for East Kentwood High School

This is my fifth year in the policy debate community. I debated for East Kentwood in high school for 3 years, making it to elims at national tournaments. I debated for a very short time at Michigan State last year.

I don’t reject any argument on-face. I am open to hearing just about anything as long as it’s a well-developed argument.

T: I tend to lean towards reasonability on most procedural questions, but don’t let that stop you from reading them. I think it’s easy for the negative to persuade me otherwise on T if they provide a topical version of the affirmative. These debates should have lots of clash and be well-impacted and you must tell me what the topic looks like under your interpretation.

Theory: Like I said, I tend to lean towards reasonability, but that’s only probably because theory debates tend to be shallow. Limits on conditionality tend to be arbitrary. Time skew holds little to no weight when you are spewing your entire block at me and not answering the substance of the argument. If you are impacting your arguments well enough, you'll probably be able to get me to vote here.

Kritiks: Don’t assume I know what you are talking about. Whether I know the literature or not should be irrelevant to how well you explain things. Specific links are your friend - you should talk about the K in the context of the affirmative as much as possible. The negative advocacy should probably remedy the ills of the affirmative in addition to the external impact.

Disads: I am not a fan of vote no or bottom of the docket - they are just bad arguments. I treat intrinsicness arguments as intervening actors.

Counterplans: Sure, but they aren’t a reason you should disengage from the case. Counterplans that result in the plan usually are bad for debate and just bad strategically.

Affirmatives: I am not of the school of thought that you must have a policy that the USFG enacts. However, I do require a stable advocacy and consistent strategy just like I would from the negative. You must, at some point during the 1AC, tell me what the ballot does or what I am voting for. The negative should and will probably at some point during the cross-ex engage you on this question and I will hold you to your answer.

Also relevant: Ethos is important. Be smart and confident, not condescending. Clarity is a must. Quality evidence is very important. Spin is okay, but it must be grounded in the evidence. I don’t care how many cards you have on a question if they don’t say anything. That is why smart analytics are better than cards a lot of the time and will be rewarded.