Bogaty,+Michael


 * Yale '17 Update:** I haven't judged or thought about debate in a while so a) slow down b) I'm not up on the latest trends c) I no longer hold strong opinions about debate that I may or may not have held in the past.
 * Background: ** I debated for Scarsdale on the national circuit, graduating in 2015, and qualified twice to the TOC, reaching octas my senior year. I coached for two years but am no longer coaching.
 * Conflicts: ** Scarsdale, Millburn CS, Woodlands DY, Roslyn RR


 * General: **

My primary goal as a judge is to minimize intervention. So long as it has some semblance of a warrant, I will vote on any argument. LARP, framework, theory, krtiks, tricks, etc… are all fine. Since my belief that I should be tab is far stronger than my preference for or against any argument, I have found myself voting quite frequently for arguments that I didn’t like when I debated.


 * Evaluation of arguments: **
 * I do not believe in embedded clash and evaluate rounds very technically. I will evaluate whatever explicit interaction the debaters do instead of calling evidence to see how it “actually” interacts.
 * Terminal defense probably exists; whether a piece of defense is terminal is up for debate.
 * I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments, but some extension is necessary.
 * My tolerance for newness in the 2ar is probably lower than that of many judges.
 * Absent argumentation on a framing issue (comparing worlds vs. truth testing, competing interpretations vs. reasonability, etc…) I will evaluate the round in the manner implicitly assumed by the debaters. This does not apply to offensive claims such as drop the debater on theory: that cannot be implicit and needs to be warranted.
 * When debaters make no comparison between arguments, I tend to prioritize arguments based on strength of link rather than trying to evaluate the interaction or relative quality of arguments myself.


 * Speaking/Cross-x: **
 * I know every judge says this, but SLOW DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY ON TAGS, SHORT ANALYTICS, AND THEORY INTERPS /ADVOCACY TEXTS. Similarly, I struggle to process dense philosophy at top speed, so it is advisable to slow down on those arguments.
 * I’ll yell speed/clear/louder as many times as necessary.
 * Flex prep is fine, and you don’t need permission from your opponent to use it.


 * Miscellaneous: **
 * Speaks are based on, in order: strategy, tech skills, big picture explanation, and argument quality. I have averaged very close to a 28.5 so far.
 * Feel free to ask about my paradigm before the round or at michael.bogaty@gmail.com. Don’t be afraid to ask me questions after the round if there are aspects of my decision you are confused about, but be polite.