Sigalow,+Martin

2018 Conflicts:

Lake Highland Prep School, Millburn AJ, Millburn AW TOC 18' Conflicts: Westview RS, Princeton DL, Bryam Hills LP, Cape Fear MA, American Heritage AD, Quarry Lane SK, San Marino ED, Cy Fair TW, Santa Monica RE, Strake Jesuit MC, Millard North TQ

Camps:

2017 - VBI Swarthmore (novice lab)

2016 - TDC Rotating lecturer

2015 - VBI LA (rising second year lab)

I debated LD for four years for Lake Highland Prep (11'), won an octos bid, a semis bid, and a finals bid. If you have any questions, and I mean this in the most forward way possible, email me. I check my email constantly and will answer any questions you want. msigalow61@gmail.com.

I like arguments of all types. I was a philosophy major and did lots of phil debate, but I also did policy (Emory 2015) so I enjoy policy-style and k debate too.

There are three "technical-foul" sort of norms I will enforce against without any argument needing to be made.


 * 1) New arguments wont be evaluated.
 * 2) A debater is not allowed to make an argument that is the exact opposite of an argument they made earlier in the debate. For example, if the affirmative says cap is bad in the AC, the 1N reads link turns to cap, the 1AR cannot concede those and then read 4 cards about why cap is good (that happened in a debate I judged). For the same reasons, cross ex and past speeches are binding.
 * 3) If an argument is mislabeled in the ac, aka an argument is tagged as the second impact to a contention card but is in fact a theory argument against counterplans, then the negative is allowed to make new responses to that argument. In that case, the affirmative has lied about what their argument means. In general, my understanding of which arguments are offense and which are defense will affect how I treat certain arguments.

To get good speaks in front of me:


 * 1) Be fast and efficient
 * 2) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Be strategic
 * 3) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Don't go for stupid arguments (I will vote on stupid arguments, though)

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Extensions:
 * 1) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">You don't have to extend your theory interps or plan texts or counterplan texts. In fact, please don't. I want those seconds of my life back.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If a layer is dropped you can refer to it in passing and I'll count that as an extension.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If warrants conflict the more developed and intricate extension will usually win out.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Theory Stuff <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">LARP <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Ks <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Framework debate <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Misc
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I default to competing interps if no one makes any arguments either way on the assumption that if no decision calculus for theory debate is introduced debaters would have wanted me to resolve the debate as mechanically as possible. This also applies when the first time a debater advances an argument for one paradigm or another is the 2ar.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In some rounds, a theory defender does not explicitly give a counterinterpretation text. In those rounds, I will assume a counterinterpretation that is the opposite of the interp.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I will now vote on disclosure theory. Sigh.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I default to offense-defense.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I assume that affirmative fiat is durable unless otherwise stated. Negative rollback arguments probably need to say in the 1n why fiat isn't durable.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Permutations are tests of competition.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I believe that sequencing permutations are theoretically illegitimate, personally, because I believe that timeframe-based competition is bad for debate. I also believe that intrinsic perms are bad.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Severance perms aren't allowed at all because I believe that the aff can't go against something they've said earlier in the debate. No number of arguments will cause me to give that belief away.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Perms, on counterplans and Ks, do not need "net benefits." They can have net benefits, but they don't need them. If the perm is just as good as the alt or counterplan then the counter-advocacy is not competitive.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If the first time the alt is mentioned as a floating PIC is the 2N, almost any aff 2AR argument will incline me to think it is not.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">ROB stuff and framework maybe interact, but if no argument is presented either way I will assume they do not directly clash.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you don't have a ROB in the first speech, I'll assume you're truth testing.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I can judge tricks and framework rounds.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I will allow new 2N responses to Aprioris in the AC. Whether an argument is an apriori, for this purpose, is up to my discretion. This doesn't apply to spikes that aren't aprioris, and it doesn't apply to neg aprioris. An apriori is an argument that wins the round immediately on substance, prior to the framework.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I default to a truth testing paradigm, where "oppression bad" needs warrants, too.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Slow down for tags so I'm very clear on whats responsive and what's not.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I'll assume that the aff defends implementation unless they say they don't in the AC or CX. The 1ar is too late to say they don't. That's normal means for being aff.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Trigger Warnings (TW: mental health, violence, and sadness): <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Policy Debate**: assume I'm generally consistent with policy norms most of the time because I did the activity for awhile, but haven't done it few years. I went to Emory, so Policy-style arguments are probably what I'd be best at. Making the debate very difficult for me is not in your best interest. LD predispositions that probably affect the way that I will judge:
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Document compilation is prep. Flashing and emailing is not, but any time putting things into one document is prep time.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Any card from a current or former LD coach relying on some asserted fact, about debate or otherwise, will be treated as analytics.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you run theory or a K on a novice or a local debater who won't get it, I will treat the argument as not existing for the purposes of the decision. Also, if you are mean to novices or local kids in other ways, I will tank your speaks. What you can do: go a little above conversational speed and read an nc and turns to the aff. At least then the debater you are hitting understands the terms under which they lost. When you're aff, it can be dense but not too fast. Beat your opponent by making arguments against them that they understand the form of, at least, if not the content.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Claiming that fairness not being a voter or skepticism or determinism or something means you can do whatever you want and attempt to sign the ballot or smash your opponent's laptop (Berkely 2011) is unacceptable. Physically coercing your opponent, or threatening to, will result in a loss.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you make fun of or insult someone's debate background, school, or personal appearance, with an argument or otherwise, I will tank your speaks, or, if things are serious enough, I will drop you.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you argue directly that a certain identity group of debater should not make arguments or should lose on the spot or something like that, I will not vote on it/might consider more drastic steps.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If a debater wishes to read a debate arguments about suicide, severe depression/specific mental health issues, sexual violence, or any similarly situated issue, I expect debaters to ask before the debate for their opponent/spectators/judges permission to read the stuff. If a spectator wants to leave, they have that option, but otherwise if another judge, perhaps, or opponent has a trigger-warnings based reason against those sorts of issues, then the expectation is that you will read something else if you have it. If you feel affected by such an issue, raise the issue before cross ex and after the speech, but if it gets really bad you are allowed to interrupt your opponent, in which case I will, if I am the only judge in the room, stop the debate and take appropriate steps. I will not enforce a genuine-ness standard for whether it really has affected you, but I will enforce a restriction on the content of what you can object to in order to discourage frivolity. In the cases where a debater does not raise an objection on the basis of their own personal well-being, those issues do not warrant interruptions or pre-cross ex appeals for my ballot: instead, those must be initiated in the form of theory arguments.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">1. It is probably much easier than you are used to with judges to convince me to drop the debater on a CP theory argument like PICs bad.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">2. I'm worse at flowing on average than most policy judges for organizational reasons. For that reason, being abundantly clear where you are at any given point in the debate is very important. Signpost lots.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">3. Although I'm way closer to Policy on this than LD, be aware that in LD arguments won are often treated as won or lost according to a yes/no focus instead of a "risk it is true" focus. Some of this bias may seep into what I'm judging.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">4. I am more tab than a lot of policy judges, in the sense that I will vote on arguments about, say, religion, or zeno's paradox, or random skeptical stuff without an air towards intervening. I am probably more likely to vote negative on presumption in the case where I think the neg is decisively ahead on an issue like this.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">5. I will probably treat conceded warrants as being more important than policy judges. That is to, the burden of rejoinder for arguments is significant. Evidence can matter to those arguments and how much they matter, of course. And, of course, evidence can diminish the importance of the factors cited by the conceded card. But people need to be responsive to specific stuff.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">6. Unless it's something like Framework, I think it would be unwise to get involved with a huge T debate in my case. I always found policy T debates really complex. (LD T debates I've been totally good with me for some time). There are just lots of definitions floating around and some counterdefinitions and some not and basically ugh. It may be wise in this scenario to be the initiator since I'm more inclined to pull the trigger on this rather than use intuitions? I really think you would be better off not putting it in the block and doing stuff I actually did in college at Emory, which was almost never to go for T.