LD

Overview

Basically, I prefer a more traditional style of LD. That being said, I don't have any huge objections to progressive debate. I am fine with philosophy and try not to intervene too much. I can enjoy debates that focus on framework or philosophical issues and those that focus on contentions and substantive argumentation. A good round is a good round, no matter the layer(s) that get the most attention. I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a criterion and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the value or criterion is not itself a reason for you to win, unless you can weigh under it. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance in the round and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps and signposting are extremely helpful, so please stick to roadmaps once you've given them.

I judge mostly on the local level. I was a policy debater a millennia ago, have been coaching LD, PF and speech for 13 years and have had policy teams in the past. My students have reached the elimination rounds at the NCFL Grand Nationals in LD and Policy.

This is my LD paradigm. I will not answer questions about my preferences or judging style once the first speech has been given. I do not disclose or provide oral critiques unless required to do so by the tournament. As a coach I value a well written ballot so that I can discuss the rounds with my debaters. My position on disclosure and oral critique is non-negotiable.

Argumentation

- Topicality matters. If you want to run something non-topical, go ahead, but be prepared to strongly defend why I should be considering it in the round.

- Only make theory arguments when the violation is genuinely unfair and has a real impact on the round. I won't evaluate frivolous theory arguments.

- I will not drop debaters just for making new arguments, but I will drop the arguments. An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument. A new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.

- I will default to the Aff's proffered definitions (assuming they're stated in the AC) unless Neg offers good reason for me prefer a counter-definition (or a modified version of the Aff's definition) proffered by the Neg. I cannot reject a definition unless I am given some alternative definition or understanding to use and that alternative is argued for.

- Please summarize your winning arguments in your last speech. While I may disagree with your list of voting issues, it helps me see what issues you have identified as important and how you weigh them.

Evidence

- I do not require debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it--it's simple enough to do. I do, however, expect you to share evidence when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and in slower debates, I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases just as an aid for flowing. Don't be lazy.

- I am reluctant to call for evidence. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round.

Speed

- I dislike speed more because I cannot read my handwriting on my flow if you are going too quickly. If the first time I hear an argument is in rebuttal, it will count as a new argument on my flow and will be evaluated as such. I will not vote you down or reduce your speaker points just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like, as long as I can still understand most of what you're saying. I can only vote on what I can flow.

- I will not shout "clear" during rounds. You are first and foremost a communicator. It is your obligation to make eye-contact with/watch the judge, so you should see if I have stopped flowing. If I have stopped flowing, take this as your cue to slow down. If you sustain a pace I find literally incomprehensible, I will stop writing entirely until your pace becomes comprehensible again. Again what is not on my flow is not evaluated in the round.

Timing

- I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. If you need time signals, please ask, but I am not always great at remembering them. Fair warning.

- Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters must clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time. Starting prep before alerting me is unacceptable.

- Feel free to time yourselves. You may time your opponents as well, but please don't cut them off verbally or with an alarm. If you think an opponent has exceeded their time, get my attention quietly.

- A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. No compound, complex or run-on sentences.

Cross-Examination

- CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, if you are Aff and raise something said in 2CX in the 2AR, I am going to treat it as a new argument/non-binding and I will discount it. If the Aff wants something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should raise it in the 1AR.

- I do not allow flex prep (using prep time as added cross-ex time) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will defer to the majority on whether to allow it. Similarly, I do not allow cross-ex time to be used as prep time. If you have questions on flex prep or using cross-ex time to prep, please ask before the round begins so that everyone is on the same page. It is always okay to ask!

- I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative.

My Redlines

- I will vote down any debater who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate violence against other human beings; (2) take a position which is Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.

- I will vote down any debater who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence. To clarify, "exceptional rudeness" includes, but is not limited to, extreme badgering, using an offensive epithet, or making an obscene gesture.

- I will vote down any debater who reads extremely graphic or disturbing evidence which carries a high likelihood of causing serious emotional distress to a participant or audience member in the round, unless a trigger warning is given before the debate and the consent of all present is obtained in advance.

• It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be extraordinarily significant. In such a case, I will expect a debater to justify to me in their speech why the evidence and the word in question are extremely important for me to hear. This is an incredibly high burden to meet, and the justification should be quite compelling. Reading an obscene word without sufficient justification will cause me to ignore the card entirely and reduce your speaker points. Also using obscene language is never acceptable to me in a round. All of you have a bigger vocabulary than that! Find a different word to use in your speech.

Finally,

I don't bite--feel free to ask questions before the round if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge" or "Mrs. Mandile" are acceptable. I use she/her/hers pronouns. Remember: just have fun and do your best. Good Luck!