I look for a clear, understandable LD debate with strong clash of values and criterion.  

Don't spew; I can't judge your arguments if I can't understand them.  

How to win the round: give a clear roadmap; cite your evidence clearly so that I can note it; constantly show how your points and evidence tie back to your value and criterion, attack your opponent's case but be polite, professional, and fair to your opponent; get your opponent to admit that your value is primary; employ logos/ethos/pathos in appealing to me; point out your points that flow through and those dropped by your opponent.

How to lose the round: bring in Ks and counter plans and jargon that you simply recite and can't explain in your own simple, powerful words; be rude and/or abusive to your opponent; spew so quickly that I stop taking notes; ignore me as the judge and just look at your laptop; drop points; tell me what I should think or do instead of persuading me; admit that your opponent's value trumps yours.  

Sharon Ellsworth-Nielson

Email for questions: andrewhull09@gmail.com

If you want to see the cool Star Wars Intro version of my paradigm, let me know and I'll send it to you via email. Otherwise, here's my boring normal version of my paradigm:

I debated PF for 3 years. I've judged a quite a few tournaments. I was closer to the progressive (to the extent that PF can be progressive) side of the spectrum when I debated, but am receptive to both traditional and progressive debate styles. That being said, my threshold for speed is fairly high, so long as you're being relatively clear. You'll probably be able to tell if I'm not understanding.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that grand cross-fire is the most useless 3 minutes in all of debate. Probably the most useless 3 minutes of anything. Ever. If both teams agree to skip it, I'm more than down.

How to win my ballot:

A) Win the flow. My strategy, when judge adaptation wasn't necessarily an issue, was to dominate the flow as best I could, and that translates to how I vote. You can do this in a variety of ways: outweighing on impacts (GIVE ME A WEIGHING MECHANISM i.e. PREFER THIS TYPE OF IMPACT OVER ANOTHER BECAUSE _______), clean extensions, delinking arguments, etc. My vote will almost certainly be based upon who won the flow, so work hard to win it. I am super receptive to even risky strategies, and may give you better speaker points for utilizing one. FYI, it is okay, and sometimes vital to drop arguments that you aren't winning. Go for arguments that you feel like you're stronger on. Tell me what you're winning, and why you're winning it.

B) Not being a jerk. A ballot isn't worth making a fool out of yourself.

Specifics:

Narrow down the debate at the end. View the round like a funnel. The content of summary and final focus should not be the entire flow, but exactly what arguments you're winning, why you're winning them, and why that wins you the ballot.

I don't care whether or not you stand for cross, do what makes you comfortable.

I may or may not call for evidence after the round if it becomes an issue or the debate is close. Quality of evidence is important, and may help you win the round.

I usually am pretty lenient on speaks, but a 30 is sacred. If you want it, you gotta be pretty much perfect. To get close to it, use speeches effectively and strategically, use evidence efficiently, and Batman or Pokemon references (only if they're good).

If you use a cost-benefit analysis, provide a weighing mechanism if possible. If you're going to use a framework, use it to give you a strategic edge.

I expect to see value debate. If you speak fast you run the risk of me not understanding your point. Do your best to present coherent and appropriate arguments to attack your opponent's case. I value well layed out, clear arguments.

-Speak Well

-Play nice

-Framework

-Time yourselves

-Give voters

Professionalism, formality and presentation (including diction, lack of slang and vocabulary) play a large point in my awarding of speaker points, and the rules below are a guide to best practices.

PARADIGM: I judge on a cross between policy styles with an emphasis on Speaking / Communication Skills ; winning AFFs will demonstrate that they have presented all the stock issues (H,I,S,S,T) , while successful NEG's will show specifically why and how the AFF has failed to support one or each of the stock issues, and/or how their counter meets stock issues better or more completely. AFF's should also show that they have fully supported their case and during their scoring summary explain how NEG has failed to attack or prevail on each of the stock issues.  

NEG's should always ensure they have sufficiently attacked each of their opponent's stock points and demonstrated specifically how AFF has failed point by point. NEG should negate / address / critique AFF's H.I.S.S.T. or address stock points through their Counterplan but provide a brief roadmap before beginning.

Suggestions

1) PROFESSIONALISM & CONDUCT: Be polite and professional at all times. You should greet your opponent(s) cordially and get whatever sharing is needed out of the way as soon as you sit down (e.g.thumbdrives etc.). 

a) Do not talk to your partner during opponent's argument - you should not  not be heard  while an opponent is presenting their case, passing notes is ok, typing is ok, etc.;  b) Your diction and language should be professional at all times. Try not to use words/slang such as: like, you know, whatever, bull, umm, hell, and any other words that you shouldn't / wouldn't use in a professional setting; d) Do not smirk or make any facial gesture at opponents.

2) SPREADING*: You should speak NO FASTER than your words AND meaning can both be understood, Any faster than about four (4-5) words a second (about 250 pm), at least for me, is testing the bounds of at least my comprehension. 

3) LOGICAL FALLACIES: Watch out for what I call logical "leaps." An example of this would be when you arguing a position and you use a citation for "more" than it stands for;  this is unacceptable in either direction, keep your arguments simple, tight and intelligble. Then provide a scoring summary that reflects those arguments and provides a brief overview of your view of your opponent's shortcomings.

4) THEORY: I have a high threshold for theory and don't consider it a voting issue.

5) SCORING SUMMARY: Each side should provide a two - three minute Scoring Summary, unless you think you need more time to address issues that arose during cross -  that details their accomplishments and their opponents failures; thus AFF should cover how they supported their H.I.S.S.T. and how the NEG failed to address or conflict their evidence while the NEG should point out specifically which H.I.S.S.T. points the AFF failed to support or address, or/and then why their counterplan offers better H.I.S.S.T.  

GOOD LUCK! Debate is by far the best thing you can do to advance yourself in school, college and life.

Just tell me how to vote I don't really have an inclination to anything.

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.