Judge Paradigm for NAUDL- Sandy Amos

I have moderate experience in debate judging. Most of my Rounds have been novice and JV rounds at BAUDL Tournaments.

I do not like spreading. If I can’t understand what you saying I can’t evaluate your arguments. I like arguments that are focused on the substance of the case. I do not find Topicality or Framework to be particularly effective. There should be considerable clash on the merits of the arguments that are presented. I do appreciate personal connections to the topics being debated. I believe that when an argument is connected to your personal experience it is more effective. Please provide your files before the debate as I like to follow along with the text as I flow.

I consider Performance Debate techniques to be a valid and creative method of debate and I am not particularly interested in argument on the format of debate. I value originality and intellectual discourse as the basis for my ballot decisions.

My experience: Teacher/coach in a UDL for 8 years. Never debated. I guess you could say I am an experienced lay judge who is OK with spreading, K, framework and other stuff lay judges don't usually want to hear about. Please slow down for contentions/signposts/tags/cites. 

I copied Toni Nielson because I agree with everything she wrote in her paradigm:
"Here’s what I think helps make a debater successful – 

1. Details: evidence and analytics, aff and neg – the threshold for being as specific as humanly possible about your arg and opponent's arg remains the same; details demonstrate knowledge 
2. Direct organized refutation: Answer the other team and don’t make me guess about it – I hate guessing because it feels like intervention
3. Debating at a reasonable pace: I ain’t the quickest flow in the west, even when I was at my best. I intend on voting for arguments which draw considerable debates and not on voting for arguments that were a 10-15 seconds of a speech. If one team concedes an argument, it still has to be an important and relevant argument to be a round winner. 
4. Framing: tell me how you want me to see the round and why I shouldn’t see it your opponents way
5. Comparison: you aren’t debating in a vacuum – see your weakness & strengths in the debate and compare those to your opponent. I love when debaters know what they are losing and deal with it in a sophisticated way. 

Some style notes - I like to hear the internals of evidence so either slow down a little or be clear. I flow CX, but I do this for my own edification so if you want an arg you still have to make it in a speech. I often don't get the authors name the first time you read the ev. I figure if the card is an important extension you will say the name again (in the block or rebuttals) so I know what ev you are talking about. I rarely read a bunch of cards at the end of the debate. 

Now you are asking,
Can I go for politics/CP or is this a K judge? Yes to both; I don't care for this distinction ideologically anymore. I lean more in the K direction. My history of politics and CP debate is not nearly as sophisticated as my history of K debate.

Theory - lean negative in most instances. Topicality - lean affirmative in most instances. Framework - lean in the direction of the K. 

Truth v Tech - lean in the direction of truth. BUT gigantic caveat, debate, the skill, requires refuting arguments. So my lean in the direction of the truth is not a declaration to abandon refutation. I will and do vote on unanswered arguments, particularly ones of substance to the debate. 
Here's what I like: I like what you know things about. And if you don't know anything, but get through rounds cause you say a bunch and then the other team drops stuff - then I don't think you have a great strategy. Upside for you, I truly believe you do know something after working and prepping the debate on the topic. Do us both a favor: If what you know applies in this round, then debate that.

Good luck!"                          

Updated Dec 2023

I prefer not to read cards unless I have to (and won't follow along live in the doc) but you can include me on email chains. My email is sarahsmaga@gmail.com.

About Me:
Groves High School '10, Michigan State University '13
I debated for three years in high school and was a coach and judge in college (mostly for Niles North HS). Since then, I've judged a handful of NYCUDL and BAUDL rounds each year.

These days, I'm a pretty flexible judge - just make sure that you stay organized, explain your arguments well, and help me understand why I should vote for you. If you're interested in my more technical thoughts (circa 2013), see below.

General:
Take my philosophy into consideration when prepping your strategy, but ultimately you should run arguments you feel comfortable running.

1. Clipping cards is cheating. If you are caught clipping cards, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points that the tournament will allow.
2. (new) Prep ends when your speech is saved on the flash drive and that flash drive is removed from your computer. I used to be more relaxed about this, but realized it makes rounds inefficient.
3. Tag-teaming in cross-x is fine. Prompting during a speech is fine. Neither should be excessive. That being said, if two people are talking over each other, I can't flow/hear anything.
4. Be nice to other people in the round. Being condescending, rude, mean, etc. will impact your speaker points.
5. Speed is not as important as clarity: I need to be able to understand you read your arguments in order to vote on them.
6. Please define specific acronyms and topic-specific terms of art - I didn't work at camp last summer and have had limited exposure to the topic.

Specifics:

Counterplans - I'm fine with multiple conditional worlds, but they might make the aff's "condo bad" arguments more convincing. I'm less fond of process counterplans, dirty word PICs, etc. Make sure you explain specifically how your counterplan solves the aff advantages - this might require more work if you run an excessively complicated counterplan. Affirmatives should be making perms, solvency arguments, exploring any links to the net benefit, etc.

Disads - These are good. The negative should be making disad turns case arguments, and the affirmative should be careful not to drop them. I think it is possible for the affirmative to win terminal defense, but it's often very difficult - make sure you're also making offensive arguments as well. I'm not a huge fan of intrinsicness, vote no, bottom of the docket, etc. but I would vote on them if dropped and impacted accordingly.

Kritiks - Try to avoid jargon and explain your arguments, I'm probably not familiar with them and I don't come across critical literature very much in my science major classes. I'm much less persuaded by super-generic or "dirty word" kritiks, especially if they don't prove that the affirmative plan is a bad idea. I think the aff can weigh their advantages and should be doing impact calc versus the kritik, especially on issues of timeframe. The negative should interact with the affirmative and clearly explain the alternative - if these things are unclear by the 2NR, I find it difficult to vote neg.

Theory - I think most theory questions (with the exception of conditionality, PICs) are a reason to reject the argument, but not necessarily the team. If you think otherwise, make sure it's articulated in the debate. Theoretical objections against the consult counterplan, etc. are also convincing if argued well. I find it more difficult to vote on theory when there is a distinct lack of clash - don't just reread blocks, engage with the other team's arguments. Please explain what "conditionality" and "dispositionality" mean - clarify judge-kicking, etc.

Topicality - I prefer a competing interpretations framework. There should be substantive analysis, starting in the block, about why I should prefer your interpretation/standards/voters (just re-reading the 1NC shell in the block isn't sufficient). Impact calc is important here too.

Project Teams/Nontraditional Affs - Historically these are not the debates I feel most comfortable in. Make sure you explain your position and make efforts to engage with the other side's arguments.