Bent,+Michaline


 * Background:** My son is in his 3rd year of LD and I’ve been judging at most of the tournaments he’s been to. It’s fair to say I don't keep a rigorous flow, but my son describes me as a “good mom judge.” I’ve primarily judged rounds in Ohio that could be described as highly traditional. However, I’ve been on the national circuit before (Glenbrooks, Wake Forest). Also, you will notice some jargon below despite me saying I am not experienced with the national circuit style. My son and his debate coach helped me put this together so the jargon below is their words.


 * In brief:** I’m a traditional judge in just about every sense of the term. If you consider yourself a circuit debater please adapt accordingly. I obviously give you my full attention and work hard to follow complex arguments, but remember: I'm not a debate coach or previous debater.

1) Speed- I will try to keep up but it’s fair to say that I **cannot** handle speed. 2) Rudeness- I do not like when competitors are overtly rude to one another. You can be aggressive if you have to be, but don’t be rude. For example, you can politely cut someone off to move on in CX, but do it with finesse. 3) Jargon/topic specific technical terms- I understand a lot of the jargon but to be safe you should describe to me what it means. After you do that, you should be fine with using the term for the rest of the round. This definitely applies for jargon that comes from the topic literature. 4) Organization- Organization is extremely important. During rebuttals, make sure I know where you are on the flow; don’t just hope that I’ll know where to put your arguments 5) Voting issues- I like them! Clearly explain to me why you’re winning the round. Don’t simply list issues you’re winning; tell me why they matter.
 * Presentation:** I will not vote on presentation on it's own, but I've noticed that the best debaters also tend to have the best presentations. Effective communication is key.

1) Theory- I have little to no experience with judging theory. If it REALLY applies, I ask that you run it in a manner that would make sense to somebody not familiar with it. Clearly articulate what your opponent did wrong and how that affects the round. Avoid running theory if at all possible. 2) Kritiks- I have no experience whatsoever with kritiks. I don’t know what a kritik is. Probably isn’t a good idea to run it. 3) Plans- I would prefer you not run a plan. I’m much more familiar with the standard case structure than I am with the structure of a plan advocacy (absolutely no experience). However, you can probably run a plan **if you explain to me why you should be allowed to narrow the scope of the resolution.** In general, I’d prefer an AC that answers the question of the resolution as a whole. Also, I'd prefer if you tried to convert the plan into a standard v/vc and contention format if possible. If not, run what you wish but accept the risk of me misunderstanding your case. 4) Counterplans- See plans section. I’d rather see why the negative (the converse of the affirmative) is true in general. 5) Implementation- See plans. 6) Dense philosophical theories- You can run dense theories, just remember that I’m not a philosophy major. I’ll try my best to understand your arguments, but EXPLAIN them to me. I like LD, I just don't have time to ready philosophy books. 7) Extinction impacts- Often I see that extinction impacts have weak or unlikely links. Just ask yourself if your argument would really happen, and if it isn't realistic then I probably won't buy it. I will not intervene, but I will think. As a general rule it'd be a good idea to avoid extinction impacts. 8) Value structures- I only have experience evaluating cases with a stereotypical v/vc structure. If you want to run a different type of framework you have be more careful. I'd prefer if you converted your framework to the standard v/vc format if possible. For example, if you're running a util case you might as well just label it as a value or criterion.
 * Arguments**: I will hypothetically vote on anything, but I haven’t had too much exposure to progressive arguments. If you sell it well then there is a good chance I will vote on unique viewpoints.

If you have a specific question about style or specific arguments, feel free to ask at the beginning of the round. Please remember that my son and his coach wrote this paradigm, I'm much more friendly in person so don't hesitate asking any questions.