Le,+Todd

Todd Le Policy Judge Bio

I have affiliation with Homestead High School as I have been a judge for them for the past two years and am an alumni of the school. I debated varsity-4 person for four years, going to state every single year. I have been on and off as a judge for policy in all divisions. Since graduation I’ve really only been involved debate since that’s all I really have time for (I’m a biomedical Engineering major at UW-Madison).

I’m fine with speed as long as I can understand you (make sure tags/dates/authors are VERY clear). If you’re unclear I’ll stop flowing, plain and simple. Many times I weigh analytics heavily in a round as long as they have a clear logical chain that is well-explained. It shows me that you know your arguments and are confident in defending them. I prefer an Open cross-examination just because it allows for all parties to be on the same level and allows for maximum clarification within a round. Regarding what I love to see in debate rounds, like any normal person I love direct clash. I also love seeing great analytics backed with evidence. Impact calculus is super important for me as a TABS judge because it gives me a clear cut way to weight and vote in the round. I’m also a sucker for a good speaker. More times than not I find myself voting for the debaters that are more composed and collected in around rather than a debater that is mumbling and stumbling their way through a speech. The tie-breaker in a round for me is whichever team presents their case in the most convincing fashion no matter if they feel like they lost the round or not.

On Topicality, as a negative you better be sure that the affirmative is for certain un-topical. If you run T just to run an argument and end up kicking it in the next speech I will hate you forever. It’s a waste of time and shouldn’t be run unless you plan to stick with it all the way until the 2NR. Also, if you’re running T and on-case in the same round, I’m more inclined to vote affirmative just because that in itself is a logical fallacy. For a negative to win topicality for me, they need to be fully invested in running T and they need to run it well, violation, standards, and voters and everything. Conversely, an affirmative needs to answer T well to win it. If an affirmative answers it poorly, then I have a harder time voting for them on T, which to me is a huge issue in round.

Counterplans. I think they are part of a good neg strategy. For me, counterplans need to be both non-topical and competitive to be fair and given weight in a round. Personally, I find PICs to be somewhat abusive unless there is sound reason that the USFG literally cannot do the plan but the other actor can. Considering myself a TABS judge though, I will listen to anything that is put out in regards to counterplans as long as it is non-topical and competitive. Nothing is too ridiculous for me (unless it's like Aliens or something...that's just silly.)

Kritiks are a really cool thing in debate. I love hearing ones that are well-thought out and are especially run well. If you come to the round a present a K that is very generic and non-specific to the case or does not make me stop and actual think about the implications of the moral imperative in the round (remember I like good speakers) then it's not worth my time. For a K to be competitive I want to see a working alternative that is practical (not just reject the plan) and/or a solid framework argument as to why the K has to voted on. For a K to be worth voting on, you have to convince me why it is so important in the round and why it outweighs whatever the aff is doing (or whatever the neg is arguing because Kritikal Affs are cool too.) Again, I will listen to just about anything as long as it's not too far of stretch from reality and is run well.

Plain and simple. Conditionality is acceptable, but if the Aff reads sufficient evidence stating Condo bad and the Neg says nothing about it, then I'm fine with throwing out the Conditional argument without a question (further defense on the argument always helps, but if I will straight vote on condo bad). I'm fine with negation theory as long as the negatives defend that they can exist in parallel worlds if the aff argues that they contradict themselves (unless it's in the same DA or CP then that makes no sense...)

I'm fine with theory debate as long as I'm given a way to weigh it in the round and not just something I need to "think about." Outline why it's important, why it's a voting issue, and why your opponent doesn't meet, and then I'm fine with using it as a factor in the round. Like I said before, I'm fine with anything being run as long as it's not too far out of the scope of reality and its significance is explained well.