Marshall,+Josh

**Josh Marshall: Lake Highland Prep**
I debated in highschool for a few years; now I judge and coach occasionally and have taught at numerous summer institutes. When competing, I feel like I could boil down the ways I thought of judges into two categories: judges I felt comfortable in front of and judges I did not feel comfortable in front of. Amongst my goals as a judge is to allow you to feel as comfortable as possible, so I'm pretty much open to anything that doesn't inflict harm on others. That said, I think the “tabula rasa” judge paradigm is total fantasy and acknowledge the inevitability of certain desires and biases coloring my thinking if nothing else. Here's a few thoughts:

1)Theory: If you are running it, make sure its structurally intact (ie: I need things like violations/standards/voters or else I'll have no idea why I'm supposed to vote on the argument in the first place). If you are encountering it, make sure to point it out if the argument isn't structurally intact (which'll usually constitute a sufficient mitigation of the argument) and don't just be dismissive (b/c that'll typically seem tantamount to dropping it).

2)"The Big Picture": I feel like the big-picture/line-by-line distinction is a bit fanciful if for no other reason than the fact that individual arguments on the flow are never self-sufficient; they ALWAYS need to be linked/tied into some encompassing framework (standards/burdens/whatever). If you're so focused on the particular that nothing is linked to a standard or compared to other arguments on the flow, I won't know why I should vote on it and/or why it's more important than other arguments I could be voting on (this means WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH and LINK LINK LINK). If your so big picture that I'm not being given actual arguments/extensions that I incorporate into my decision (and, instead, am just being reminded of affects of arguments) than I won't have any points of contention to adjudicate, as its almost impossible to determine which specter of a likeness of an argument is more compelling (without out & out intervening).

3)Be explicit! I refer primarily to impacts/extensions (but is good practice in general). Don't just say "extend X, it means you have to affirm." Things like warrants, impacts, and reasons it has the effect you claim it has are very important.

4)Be responsive and comparative. Extension wars frequently lead to “Two Ships Passing…” which makes adjudication super difficult. I love it when debaters explain to me precisely why I prefer their extension over their opponent’s and/or actually deal with the particulars of an argument’s warrant (instead of just generically answering tags).

5)Speed: Its fine as long as your clear. That said, its been a year or more since the last time I judged, and I've no doubt that I'm out of practice when it comes to flowing speedily. Be mindful of this, as I'm getting too old to feel guilty if I don't catch something b/c it wasn't said/signposted/etc. clearly. It helps if you slow down for author names, and if you make sure signposting is VERY clear if your going quickly.

I can't think of what else to say, if you have any questions feel free to ask and, as always, be excellent to each other.