I've been judging for 3 years now and enjoy it a lot. One of my biggest pet peeves is spreading. I am arguably the most anti-spreader judge on the circuit :') I want to learn the topics that are being debated and be able to discern who does a better job of articulating their case. If I can't understand what is being said, it's difficult for me to be able to do that.

Some (possibly) relevant background: I debated LD from 2013-2017 at Scarsdale High School, never got a bid but made it to elims of a few bid tournaments, and I went to VBI Chicago after my sophomore year of high school. I’m currently a student at Northwestern University.

Short version:

I’ll vote on anything, provided I’m able to explain it back to you in my RFD. I must be able to clearly understand your argument without having to decipher copious amounts of stuff on my flow. Please give me voters slowly and clearly so I know what you’re talking about and can vote on it. Despite this, I’m much more likely to vote on theory/T, util-style plans with extinction, and relevant substance than I am to vote on complicated phil stuff, mostly because I really won’t understand it if you’re spreading and tend not to see links to the topic, non-topical positions, or K’s. I’m not amazing with speed (somewhere between your average parent judge and someone you’d probably pref a 1) but as long as you’re clear and have good, slow, clear voters I’ll be ok. Finally, I like arguments to be at least somewhat relevant to the topic. Be funny but not too rude, and ask me questions before the round!

Long version:

I’m not great with speed since I haven’t debated/judged for almost a year. Be clear and start off pretty slow, you can speed up a bit as the round goes on. If you notice me stop flowing, I’d strongly suggest you slow down a lot. I’ll say clear as many times as I need to without any penalty, but if it gets to a point where I basically say it every 15 seconds and you don’t change, I’ll give up and stop flowing. I’ll vote on anything as long as I can clearly understand it and know what you’re talking about. In other words, if I don’t have a damn clue what you’re talking about, you will likely lose.

Generally three categories of args for me: First category, I don’t really like these kinds of args and probably rethink your strat if you’re planning on running them:

· D&G or other radical cap K’s, Fem K’s, Ableism K’s, Gender Binary K’s

· Dense phil-heavy or framework-heavy stuff including but not limited to Levinas, Foucault, Nietzsche, Kant, or Ripstein

· Totally non-topical positions, especially if you’re the aff. To quote Ben Ulene, if you, as the aff, refuse to affirm that's fine, but I'll more likely than not refuse to affirm as well.

The next category is stuff I’m ambivalent on; if it’s your go-to then fine, read it, but know that I would prefer other args and keep that in mind because you should probably explain them more clearly in voters:

· Other K’s, like race K’s (Wilderson, Curry), Islamophobia, or Biopower

· I-Law or other mildly-dense frameworks, maybe constitutionality

There’s some limbo between these and stuff I do actually like to hear, including tricks and skep (Yes, I’m from Scarsdale but they’re hard for me to evaluate by their nature and my general not great flowing skills) and somewhat critical cases that aren’t K’s per se but have ROB’s.

Finally, stuff I do like and will be happy with you if you read:

· Theory/T

· CPs/DAs

· Util with:

o Plans

o Extinction impacts

o Plain old substantive stock contentions

In case you want to know my thoughts on each of these kinds of args, see below after the next few bullets, but the above covers the general view of different args.

Other things you should do during the round:

· Weigh. It’s true what they tell you in novice year, weighing is very important. The more you weigh the more likely I look positively on your argument, especially if your weighing isn’t just unsubstantiated crap.

· Weigh standards and voters in theory debates.

· Show me that there’s clash to args by weighing. (Seeing a trend here?)

· Give me clear, slow voters. If you’re spreading lots of arguments, chances are I missed at least one. Be sure you tell me why you’re winning (or why you think you’re winning) and how the main arguments in the round interact.

· Make clear link chains in util-style arguments.

· Weigh!

· Make jokes, throw some shade. Try to make them relevant but if you’re just funny about random stuff I like that too; don’t be mean about it though.

· Dominate during CX. While I’m on CX, I won’t flow it but I’ll pay attention. Don’t claim your opponent said something s/he didn’t, but if you get a concession in CX you have to extend it in later speeches.

· Signpost so I know where to flow what you’re saying. That’s “starting on the AC”, but also includes “on the argument that she makes…” so that I can know exactly where to flow.

· Definitely ask me questions before the round about my preferences (or other totally random things) if this doesn’t answer your questions, and also ask me questions after my RFD about what you did/what you can do better. That said, don’t question me.

I’ll vote on blippy arguments as long as you actually extend them in later speeches and tell me why they matter in the round. If they’re true and unrefuted, still extend them, but at that point an extension is sufficient to make it relevant to my RFD. I’ll also vote on random sort of sketchy arguments that other judges may not like, such as wi-fi theory, but I happen to dislike disclosure theory. I’ll vote on it but probably don’t plan on running it unless you’re genuinely at a serious disadvantage because of some abuse from it.

Let your opponent read your case over your shoulder if you don’t want to flash cases; I won’t make you flash but you have to let your opponent read over your shoulder, especially if you’re spreading. I’m sympathetic to those who want to read the case, I never was amazing at flowing super-fast spreading and found it really helpful to have the case or read along.

Now thoughts on specific arguments:

Theory/T:

My go-to strat for most of junior and senior year was to just read theory on whatever I could (Yes, I am from Scarsdale), and I basically had a few shells I would read and make genuinely applicable. Some might call this frivolous, and sometimes it was, but I did really try to make legit links to fairness and education in my shells. That said, I’ll vote for you on theory if you’re winning it and can tell me why you’re winning on it, no matter how frivolous. Notes on theory:

· Read your interp really slowly so I can clearly understand it.

· Theory comes before the K unless you really win that the reverse is true.

· I default to competing interps over reasonability, and will even tend to evaluate theory under CI unless you’re winning the debate and convince me to use reasonability and give me a good brightline.

· Read whatever voters you want, I don’t care, but actually explain them, no matter what they are.

· Don’t read a new shell in the 2AR unless something truly ridiculous and unprecedented went down in the 2NR. If you do read new 2AR theory, I’ll be reluctant to vote on it unless it’s really bad abuse in the 2NR and your shell is concise. In other words, I’ll vote for frivolous theory unless it’s a new shell in the 2AR, that’s a waste of everyone’s time.

· Default to drop the debater on both theory and T, but I can be persuaded otherwise and have no problem voting on drop the arg if you win it.

· Default to RVI’s with the conviction of that depending on the frivolousness of the shell, and I’ll be easily persuaded one way or another with a legit RVI debate.

· I don’t really have a default between fairness and education, depends on the shell and context.

· On all these points about defaults, please actually debate these bits of theory, they’re actually important and key to a good theory debate. If you just read a script of RVI/no RVI or CI/Reasonability for 4 speeches and don’t engage that’ll disappoint me.

K’s/Micropol:

I’m not a huge fan of K’s, which I get is bad and probably offensive for lots of people, but if you’re one of those people it’s not because I hate you or what you stand for, just don’t pref me high. Like I said before, I’ll listen to K’s but just won’t be very happy listening to them. If you decide to read a K, you had better:

· Have a ROB/ROJ, even if it is just a traditional “vote for the better debater”.

· Have a legitimate alt! I won’t vote for you if you don’t have an actual policy option as your alt. Don’t say “reject cap” or “reject whiteness” or “reject the aff”; if you want to do this, actually give me a real way we can minimize oppression or reject whiteness or respect the other. In other words, if you’re reading a K and are going to be fighting for educational-type arguments, there better be some actual impacts. Reject alts don’t get you this.

· Keep it simple and clear; I’m not well versed in K stuff, so explain everything to me and have real impacts please.

· Tell me why the K comes before theory if that debate arises, I’ll default to theory before the K unless you win the other way around.

· On the subject of micropol: I was put in a few uncomfortable situations as a debater where I genuinely did not know what to do given my expectation that I was playing a game and the apparently different view of my opponent. If you read micropol on everybody you debate as a strategy to win, I’d advise you change your strat or pref me low. I think of debate as a game but micropol can bring up very uncomfortable situations in that game where your opponent probably agrees with you but by the nature of debate is forced to disagree with you.

LARP:
I ran a lot of extinction scenarios/DA’s/CP’s and like these args. Try to make sure that the DA isn’t super far-fetched, but as long as you have legit evidence and a good link chain I’ll abide it. Same applies for CP’s and plans with util impacts. Weigh! Weigh your impacts! Weigh a lot! Weigh!

Dense Philosophy:

If you read the kind of thing that falls under this umbrella then you know it. This includes Kant, Ripstein, and any other stuff like that, but I’m also thinking of D&G. If you’re planning on reading D&G, don’t. That’s the one thing I really will be annoyed about if I hear it, I really just don’t like it. Sorry, don’t pref me high. Aside from D&G though, I’m definitely not the judge for phil stuff, not only because I don’t like it and think it tends to get away from the actual policy-relevant topic but also because I will not understand it unless you pretend I’m a 1stgrader. That’s not worth your time; it’ll take you the entire AC to get me to understand and vote on some very basic Kant stuff, at which point you’ll have no time to talk about the topic, which will probably make me mad and want to drop you even more. So probably don’t read Kant.

you can spread - I'll call clear as much as needed but I'll prob get annoyed if you don't listen

assume I'm pretty unfamiliar with K lit

super low threshold for frivolous theory

default to aff gets RVIs

be topical

Head Coach of speech and debate team for 11 years.

I am a former college LD'er and also really enjoyed speech doing Extemp in high school and college.

LD Paradigm
My paradigm reflects a somewhat older traditional LD judge who believes in topicality and strong argumentation with contention clash and strong crystallization. I am not impressed with debate lingo being thrown about and expected to finish the argument for you. Make it simple and argue on the framework and contentions.
Do not spread. I need to hear and flow your arguments in order to score. If I can't understand you, then I can't score you. Do not heavily rely on esoteric counterplans or kritques. Please do not do theory unless its absolutely required.

Beyond this, I am pretty simple. Argue well, follow basic decorum of the debate and make sure I can follow you. Sign posting is your friend and mine.

PF Paradigm

All that applies in LD applies here as well except I dislike partner imbalance in grand cross and counter coverage in later speeches. I believe PF should also be even MORE open to anyone to judge so less reliant on debate lingo to summarily dismiss opposition argumentation.

Congress Paradigm
Congress is the perfect combination of extemp speech and debate. I pay attention very closely during cross. First speeches are high risk and high reward. If you are giving the first pro or con speech it's basically an oratory and should be delivered as such. Later speeches should crystallize if extending the debate and counter often or taking a new angle and approach. Not that into chamber games, but at the national level I am ok with it.

TL;DR for all- directly CLASH with your opponent and make it easy for me to flow and understand you.

Debaters speaking with passion and some inflection in their voice is preferred. While speaking, it is highly favored when ideas are shared at a conversational speed. When I find a debater speaking far too fast, I will rise a hand and signal to slow down. After the first reminder to slow down, if the debater continues to speak too fast, they will be docked speaker points. If I cannot hear, I will tap my hear to alert the speaker that they must speak louder.

When listening to arguments, empirical, philosophical, and theoretical are all welcomed.

When providing a counter, be sure to break down the specifics as to why your argument is more valid than your opponents. Bonus if you are able to take your opponents' argument and provide an alternative that can make their argument valid.

I am a parent judge with limited local judging experience. I prefer traditional debate with clear arguments and clash and will be flowing those arguments throughout the round.

Be sure to clearly explain and weigh arguments.

I am not familiar with circuit debate - engage in such at your own risk.

Please observe debate decorum; I will deduct speaks for rudeness.

I enjoy interesting arguments and dislike spreading.

I am a traditional LD judge who believes in topicality and strong argumentation with contention, clash, and strong crystallization. Translation: This isn't Congress or Policy.

I don't mind speed, unless it is simply a means of spreading-spread at your own risk.

I keep a vigorous flow, but if I cannot understand your arguments I cannot flow them-are we clear?
Do not heavily rely on esoteric counter-plans or kritques, but that does not mean I will not entertain them when used appropriately and well. I don't mind "out there" arguments-make them mean something and be sure to weigh them.

Beware jargon-I do not have a degree in that.

Please sign-post, but avoid off-time road maps.

DO NOT OFFER TO FLASH your cases-I should not have to read them to decide a winner-this is supposed to about verbal debate that "lay" people can understand-Check out who Lincoln and Douglas actually were.
Beyond this, I am pretty simple. Argue well, follow basic decorum of the debate and make sure I can follow you.

competitor 1986 - 1990

judge and coach 1995 - present

I am a traditional debate judge.

I do not like spreading in debate rounds. If your delivery is too fast or too unclear, I will not be able to flow vital information. If that information is not on my flow, I cannot make a decision based on it when you tell me that it is a voting issue.

I prefer clash, thoughtful logic, and clear weighing mechanisms in a round.

Update: Jan. 18, 2020

I’m a teacher from Toms River, NJ who teaches US1 and US2 Honors. I’ve been coached PF/LD Debate and extemp at Ridge HS for the last 9 years, but it's been probably two years since I've found myself in an LD pool. Please read this paradigm before the round for the best picture of what I’m like as a judge. This is far more detailed than the readers-digest version that I’ll give orally before the round if requested.

LD

It's been a while since I've been in an LD judging pool. Needless to say, I'm out of practice.

Speed: Start out at a reasonable pace. I need to hear your voice and your cadence for a few seconds before the spreading starts. I'll call clear two or three times before I give up flowing. If you're reading a plan text/interp/role of the ballot, don't spread it. I want to hear all of it. If you're reading theory in front of me, good luck. I'll need you to go slow and hold my hand through it.

Argumentation: I'm most familiar with policy args and kritiks. That said, I'm open to whatever you want to put in front of me.

Theory should only be read in the case of actual in-round abuse. Theory for the sake of theory isn't fun for me to listen to. If you're going to run theory, you should read it at a slightly faster than conversational pace. I'm not familiar with the arguments, and often a lot of it goes over my head. I need the abuse story to be clear and concise to the point where I can explain it start-to-finish in an RFD. The more accessible a theory argument is, the easier a time I'll have evaluating it.

I have a super low threshold on responses on spikes at the end of a constructive. I tend to ignore arguments like time skew, if I'm being honest.

Don't feel like you have to go for every argument in the round. Be strategic in the issues you select. You're constructing a ballot story for me and if all I have are blippy arguments to vote on, I (and probably you) will not be particularly happy with the decision rendered. I prefer seeing thoughtful debate with depth on one or two issues in the round rather blippy, surface level arguments about everything.

Warrants are important, logical and otherwise. "That isn't true" isn't an argument...you need to tell me why something isn't true.

Ad Hominem attacks against a debater are unacceptable. I'm not going to vote for a debater who calls their opponent racist, sexist, ableist, etc without any justification.

Racist, sexist, abelist, etc. arguments are a no-go for me. Run at your own risk.

Speaker Points: I'll follow whatever standard the tournament sets. You'll probably notice that I'm a bit stingier with speaker points than other judges. That's not to say that I've never given a 30 before, but it's not a particularly frequent occasion.

Evidence: The evidence standard in LD (in my experience) is remarkably higher than it has been in PF rounds that I've judged...that said, I still feel the need to say it...Academic integrity is extremely important. Please be honest. Don't alter a card's meaning, don't intentionally misrepresent evidence. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent.

_______

PF

Speed/Speaking: I enjoy fast/circuit style debate. However, I will not flow if you spread. Spreading has no place in PF. I consistently reward good speakers who sound like they care about what they are talking about. When I evaluate a speaker I take into account a number of things: strategic decisions, coverage, efficiency, speaking style, persuasiveness, etc.

Points: 0-25 (or whatever the lowest base the tournament allows to give) are reserved for those who are offensive (more on that later). 25.5-26 is a debater who has a lot to work on, has serious flaws in arguments, couldn’t fill speech times, and most likely will not make it to elims. 26.5-27.5 is an average debater. May make it to elims, but still has noticible flaws in arg construction, lines of logic, and is not a great speaker. 28-29 will most likely break. Lines of logic are mostly solid and I was probably impressed by the case. Args may have flaws but they are minor. 30 is the ideal debater. Flawless argumentation, a stellar and strategic speaker.

Things that will lose you speaks: The thing I most frequently award 25 speaks for is for not citing evidence correctly. A few examples of this are additions or omissions of words (even the omission of a word like “might”), straw man arguments, literally making things up. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent. Debate is an academic activity. As such, academic integrity is important to me. If you feel that you cannot debate in front of me without unethically interpreting evidence, please strike me.

While it may not earn you a 25 outright, talking during your opponents speeches is extremely rude. Your opponents speeches are not prep time for you. If you need to communicate with your partner, write or type a note. Every time a debater decides to speak during their opponents speech, I’ll subtract a half point from them.

During CX, please treat your opponent with respect. I understand CX gets heated sometimes but yelling over your opponent, being condescending, etc won’t win you points with me.

Framework: Please have one at the top of the constructive. It’s difficult to debate literally every aspect of a resolution without some reasonable restrictions to ground or without telling me how I should evaluate the round. I’m not sure why this has become a trend, but debaters have started framing debates/running observations in their rebuttals (not overviews, full blown frameworks). If a framework turns up anywhere but the beginning of the constructive, I won’t flow it. I don’t think framing the debate in the rebuttal (the second rebuttal especially) is particularly fair.

Weighing: Please weigh especially if you’re working with two different metrics (money and lives for example). If you don’t weigh, I have to do the weighing myself and I prefer not to.

Rebuttals: I understand the value of the line by line. What I dislike are massive card dumps with 8 responses against each subpoint. I reward debaters who can make sound logical arguments (with a source or two where appropriate) to dismantle a contention. Please warrant all responses. Warrants can be logical or source based. I don’t want to hear “my opponent is wrong.” Or “this contention doesn’t make sense”...tell me WHY your argument is true. (This should be self explanatory, but I’ve written too many ballots that say the words “no warrant/please warrant your response).

The Summary: There isn’t no enough time to cover a line by line in a summary. Give me logical responses (sources if you have to) to arguments and crystallize the debate. Set up the voting issues.

Final Focus: Don’t run new arguments in the Final Focus.

Id be happy to answer any other questions you have before the start of the round.

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

I am judge, who likes to have no preconceived notions and like to assume a position leaning to affirmative or negative arguments with equal propensity. Come prepared to be creative with your framework and I would love to equally entertain creative negation!

Good luck!

Be clear give voters

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

Email for speech docs: alyssastokes19@gmail.com

I am a 6th-year lay judge, former parent from a very traditional circuit. I do have some experience on the national circuit, almost exclusively in lay rounds. I prefer a topical debate on the substance of the resolution. I like a value and criterion, but I don’t make my decision based solely on framework. I expect empirical evidence but don’t want a policy debate. If you are a progressive debater and aren’t willing/able to adapt, you’ll want to use a strike. While I wouldn’t drop you just for being progressive, I probably wouldn’t comprehend enough of your case to make a good decision.

I am comfortable with a lively conversational speed; do not spread. I am a flow judge, and if I can’t understand you due to excessive speed, I will put down my pen. (And you definitely don’t want me to rely on memory.)

Give me voters. If you can integrate them into your final speech, even better.

I suffer from social anxiety and therefore generally do not not disclose in-round unless the tournament requires it, but I will publish the results after I make my decision; my RFD and feedback will be on your ballot. I appreciate your understanding.

Be nice and have fun!

t.shertzer@columbia.edu

Background

Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts '16

Columbia '20

I competed in LD and PF in Louisiana for 6 years in MS and HS and have been judging MS and HS PF, LD, and Policy for 4 years while at Columbia. Louisiana is primarily more of a traditional / lay circuit and most of what I ran was on the more traditional side of LD, but I'm more than open to any type of argumentation as long as you explain and impact it well.

Summary:

Run whatever you want short of being blatantly offensive (e.g. "racism good") as long as you explain and impact clearly. You need to provide some sort of weighing mechanism and explain why that mechanism is superior to your opponent's and how you're winning under that mechanism. Have some sort of clear offense and extend your offensive arguments throughout the round while weighing your offense against your opponent's. Clear framing and comparative weighing is important. If you're reading something conceptually complex you must explain how its relevant to the round and clearly articulate the impacts of your arguments. I'll be flowing on paper and am down to vote for some wacky complex stuff (I'm 100% not a layjudge) but am not up to date on the hip debate lit and newer progressive argumentation styles so please be especially clear (I'm an engineering major so am unfamiliar with a lot of the lit/philosophy that gets read-- pls explain). Signpost, signpost, signpost.

Framework

Having some flavor of framework in LD is important to me. If you don't provide anything I'll evaluate under a util-ish lens by default. Winning framework is a big part of the debate, but winning framework ≠ winning the debate. Framework established the mechanism for weighing your impacts.

Theory

I never ran theory and am not super familiar with a lot of the lit but don't have anything against it. As with any type of argument, explain and impact well and you can run whatever you want barring anything morally reprehensible (i.e. if you're making the debate environment uncomfortable or hostile for someone else).

Update after judging a couple theory-heavy rounds: Please be especially clear how the theory you're running interacts with the ballot and how it contributes to you winning the debate / why I should care about it. Be advised that you'll really have to convince me that I should prioritize the theory over anything else if you want me to vote for it over something more grounded in framework / a clearer weighing mechanism.

K Debate

Again, never dabbled too much into Ks myself and while I'm a little more familiar with some of the common K lit you need to make sure you're explaining and impacting clearly.

Speed

Probably take things down a couple notches from your top speed, but as long as you're clear speed is fine. Slow down for tags, authors, and analysis. Speeding through cards isn't an issue given your opponent has access to your evidence (flash it, email it, print it, whatever).

Misc.

*If you're clearly more experienced than your opponent don't beat them into the ground-- it's not a good look.

*Presentation style <<< clarity of arguments

*Flex prep is cool as long as your opponent is down

*Speaks start at ~28 and go up or down

*I have very minimal experience with performance debate and if you're a performance debater you need to clearly explain how your performance relates to the ballot and clashes with your opponent.

*Good evidence >>> more evidence

*Have fun!! Tasteful jokes warmly encouraged

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Email chain: msigalow61@gmail.com

Conflicts: Lake Highland Preparatory School

Policy at CFL Nationals:

I coached Circuit LD from 2011 until the 2019-2020 School Year and judged very frequently but haven't judged since then (I just graduated law school). My students have done very well. I debated policy for Emory University from 2011-2014 and have a decent knowledge of NDT-level policy debate but my background is in LD. I am not as familiar with the substantive content of many arguments, especially old arguments the community would know but I would not, or new arguments that became popular after my time. In LD, I judged a lot of "clash of civ" debates and am quite comfortable with K debates, although on the team I coached was the guy who did all the topic-relevant plan/disad/T stuff.

Some quick policy debate comments

1. Almost universally, I am unaware of any particular reputation a team might have. Try not to be too chummy with me or the other judges on any panel to which I might be on. I think that's a form of gatekeeping.
2. I have not had to flow speed in a bit, so be a little generous, if you can afford to do so.
3. I don't think permutations need net benefits (I'm not sure if this view is mainstream).
4. If a component of an affirmative is necessary for the affirmative to solve their advantage, then failure to solve it means the affirmative has not solved their advantage. If instead that component is sufficient, a counterplan that solves that component solves the whole advantage. If it is neither, by the end of the debate it should be clear what role that component plays. I will need less explaining on these points. 
5. Bullying is bad (coaches and competitors). Be nice! Also, talking over people or making fun of their appearance is impermissible.
6. I have seen a disproportionate number of Emory IW and Michigan AP speeches. 

Some general comments for this tournament, including LD-focused biases that may impact how I judge 

1. I am not sure what policy is like at CFL Nationals, but I will be keenly aware of the impact the speed could have in a debate where one team can't flow it and the other team and the judges can. I am not sure to what extent these norms exist in policy.
2. It is probably much easier to get me to vote on a theory argument like condo bad or process counterplans bad than it would be for policy folks, because theory is treated differently in LD.
3. If you can convince me an argument is genuinely new, I won't evaluate it.
4. I don't know the topic or its norms so I would be careful of a T debate.
5. Women get talked over in debates far too much. If I believe you are contributing to this problem I may penalize you.

The LD rules below may apply, but they disproportionately arise because LD's very low number of speeches necessitates stating preferences like those because of the inability to call out late-breaking decisional stances, so they are probably not as important.

LD:

1. No new arguments or arguments that are the exact opposites of a previously made argument.
2. Severely mislabeling arguments is extremely bad.
3. I will not evaluate the debate at any point before its end.
4. I default to offense-defense, competing interps, durable fiat, perms test competition, and that the aff defends implementation.

In PFD, I want to see good wholesome debate. Experience is plentiful, but I always tell debaters to tell me what to put on the ballot. Please make sure to properly extend all arguments and assume tabula rosa judging style. Evidence is extremely important and so is frameworking the round properly.

In LD, I will accept any argument as long as the analytics can support what is said in round. I am a TAB judge.

In Policy, I will only accept what you can fully understand. You can run anything you would like as long as you are able to fully explain and defend your arguments. You must offer analysis in the round. Do not just simply read cards the whole time.

Re: LD for Yale: I did policy debate at Kansas as an undergraduate and coached there during graduate school. Although the thoughts below are more applicable to policy debate than LD, the notes in the "General Thoughts" section likely still apply heavily. I have some experience both coaching and judging LD. Historically, the debates I've judged have often been decided by one overarching question, often times either the value or the criterion. If you're able to identify what matters and win that argument, you'll probably win.

All things in this philosophy are open to debate. In most instances, I have merely attempted to describe how I have made past decisions, resulting in "preferences."

General Thoughts -

- Debate should be characterized by hard work, well-researched arguments, and clash. An incredibly high percentage of debates are won with hard work outside of the debate. As such, I will strive to work hard as a judge.

- Debate is a communication activity. Speaker points and arguments will be affected by communication. Arguments lacking a claim, warrant, and an impact as well as arguments communicated in an incoherent manner will be evaluated appropriately and likely won't be persuasive.

- Evidence/arguments: Smart arguments and high quality evidence are the surest ways to win debates. Analytic arguments can rise to this threshold. Evidence that is over-highlighted might not. High evidence quality doesn't substitute for good debating.

- Risk: "No risk" is silly, but there may be "negligible risk" that shouldn't be considered. I have found probability framing type arguments to merely beg the question of how much risk. You need to dispute the risk of the DA to win it shouldn't be considered.

- Dropped/conceded arguments: As a judge, I vote for an argument. If the affirmative drops a disad, I'm not voting for the affirmative dropped the disad. I am voting for the disad. If a team drops an argument, it is not sufficient to inform me that they have conceded an argument. That should be coupled with a minimal explanation of the argument and how it should influence my decision. I have, at times, found conceded arguments to be not applicable to the affirmative. If you win a gambling disad against a weed aff, it is not likely to win you the debate.

- I'm willing to vote on presumption. It goes to less change. Burden of proof is on the team introducing the argument.

- Demeanor issues: Be respectful of your partner, opponent, and judge. Don't clip cards, don't cut cards out of context, etc. Violations of disclosure norms are also bad. Don't say "new aff" if you've read the same affirmative, but have a "different theme" to your advantage. We rely on universities to lend us classroom space - don't steal or vandalize the space.

Argument-Specific Thoughts -

- Topicality: Topicality debates can be some of the best debates because they showcase the analytic thinking of debaters. You must answer "interpretations" and counter-define words or you will have a hard time winning. It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. "Reasonability" is almost always an argument that there isn't an impact to the limits DA. Aff's do well to win reasons why aff flex is good and the neg has too many weapons in their arsenal. In-round abuse is an unnecessary standard. Your untopical affirmative isn't topical because you've read it all year or because it's important to talk about the issues mentioned in the 1ac.

- Counterplans: Permutations should be impacted in the 2AC to explain why it makes the counterplan not competitive or why they otherwise matter ("perm do the cp" is not a complete argument; "perm do the cp, it's a way the plan could be implemented" is). The idea that the affirmative gets to "define the plan" is silly to me if challenged by evidence about how the plan would be implemented. However, if asked in c-x, the affirmative should probably define the plan with a, "we think the plan means..." It can be challenged in subsequent negative speeches. I am most likely to find a questionably competitive counterplan competes if the negative team is reading evidence and/or citing claims made in the 1ac or c-x.

- Theory: Interpretations matter here, too. If you don't meet your own, you will probably lose. That being said, I could probably not tell you the difference between 2 and 3 conditional advocacies. Just defend conditionality. Specific leanings are below:

• Conditionality: Good.
• PICs: Good, but better if they're out of something explicitly in the plan. The negative can challenge the effects of the plan with evidence, however.
• Consult/condition: Often determined by the debate and evidence. Competition challenges are a solid option, but can be answered by various evidentiary arguments from the negative.
• Delay: Probably affirmative leaning, but again context specific.
• Word PICs: Aff leaning.
• Alternate/non-USFG actors: Context specific. I lean towards the idea that a counterplan can disprove the need for the affirmative rather than being an affirmation of the counterplan. For example, the United States chose not to respond to the Rwandan genocide, in part, because the US government believed the UN could/should act.

- Disadvantages: Turns the case arguments are important, but are often actually just solvency take-outs without uniqueness. That means the affs try or die framing often wins out. Negatives should explain how they interact with the case - do they take out solvency or do they solve the case (affects evaluations of "try or die" arguments). If you're affirmative, does the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent the case turn? Does the case turn the DA? The 1AR needs to answer these questions. Politics disads represent an opportunity cost of doing the plan.

- Critiques:

Non-topical affirmatives: My predisposition favors affirmatives with an advocacy/plan that in some way defends the topic. What that means is debateable. This predisposition is also debateable, but the further you stray from the topic, the harder it will likely be for you to win simply because I believe there is a value in the topic as a point of stasis for preparation given the value that I put on pre-tournament work. Previous interations of this philsophy made it sound like those positions are not open for debate. That is not true - arguments are arguments. The purpose of this philosophy is merely to identify my tendencies and which arguments I have found more persuasive to date.

Critique affirmatives will be evaluated against the impacts the negative advance in the debate. If your plan is good for x reason it will be evaluated against the y reasons its bad. Winners of these type of debates often control the framing of impacts - are utilitarian approaches better than critical approaches, etc.

Ks on the negative: Critiques on the negative are often won if the affirmative forgets something in the checklist, the alternative functions as a CP, the negative won fairly specific or specifically applied epistemology arguments, or the negative was able to redefine the role of the ballot in some manner. I have often been persuaded to allow the affirmative to leverage their affirmative against the critique. This presumption can be overcome by impact framing arguments like methodology, ontology, etc. first. The "framework" argument that the negative should not get a critique is not particularly persuasive to me. Affirmatives will typically beat the critique on a permutation or on the arguments that the affirmative is true, the alternative doesn't solve, and the affirmative outweighs the critique. Negative's who have been most persuasive on this argument explain their specific critique in the context of the affirmative.

I always try to judge off the framework and the Value Criterion (VC). I expect debaters to have contentions that support their VC. I flow every round, and will judge based on the flow. I weigh the impacts based off the VC and evidence of contentions. I do not prefer fast talkers, as it will be more difficult for me to flow. I have judged at local WACFL tournaments in Northern Virginia, 2017 Princeton Classic, and 43rd 2017 University of Pennsylvania Tournament.