Fishman,+Alan

**TL:DR for LD:** Theory is my favorite type of debate, and I'm most familiar with util and critical positions. I also like framework debate, and I'm basically down for anything except lay/traditional debate. I am open to all types of plans and frameworks, and also to theory against them. I am open to all theory arguments, including RVI's, OCI's, metatheory, and arguments that are unique to LD. I try not to be predisposed for or against any particular theory position, and I enjoy listening to unusual theory arguments. Please include me on the email chain if there is one. I give high speaks to everyone who does circuit-style debate unless they say something truly offensive, and I give lower speaks to lay/traditional debate. **TL:DR for Parli: Make the debate technical and tell me why you're winning. I prefer theory and critical debate to straight up debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have.** I compete in open-level parli and LD in college, and I'm currently in my third year of debate. I prefer flow or circuit-style debate and I'm easily bored by lay debate. My main priority when judging is to approach the debate objectively and leave my personal opinions out of the round. I try to be a blank slate when possible, but I don't believe any judge is a complete blank slate. DON'T watch my nonverbals - I think that deliberately giving nonverbals is interventionist and if I give them unintentionally you might read them wrong. Focus on the arguments that are being made in the round, not my body language. I hold the unpopular opinion that parliamentary debate is NOT a public speaking event, but a game that involves talking, and as such, I do not care about presentation and delivery. I like procedural arguments and kritiks better than substantive debate, though I also enjoy a good DA/CP debate that is presented in a technical way. I do not time roadmaps, but I DO time thank yous. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: In parli please signpost. I find it easier to evaluate an advantage or disadvantage that has the proper structure. Do not use contention format. Give me reasons to prefer your impacts to the other team's. When reading turns or non-uniques, be sure to label the argument as such. I don't actually care about whether your advantage has a name, as long as it has a number - I do not usually flow the names of advantages. SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates, but don’t use speed to exclude your opponents from the round – it will hurt your speaks if they ask you to slow and you keep spreading, and it will also open you up to procedurals or kritiks of spreading. However, if you do run an argument against spreading, I want to hear why spreading is unfair or exclusionary to you, in this debate round. I'm unlikely to vote on the idea that one way of speaking is inherently "better" than another. I encourage you to ask your opponents to slow down if you are having trouble keeping up with them, but please do not ask them to slow down if you can keep up and match their speed yourself. THEORY: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC (such as not taking a question). I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation. RVI's are fine as long as you can show that the other team was abusive in how they ran theory, and I will vote on an RVI if it's dropped or mishandled. I do not need impacts to fairness and education unless you are comparing them to something else. I default to competing interpretations but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. Additionally, breaking the rules is not an impact by itself, and I have not actually read the official rules of high school debate events. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules or following this particular rule is good. On the flip side, if you're going to say rules are bad, I prefer arguments against a specific rule to arguments against rules in general. COUNTERPLANS: Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. I think that CP's are legitimate in all forms of debate but some CP's are abusive and I have no problem voting on theory against them. PIC's are okay as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on what part of the plan it severs out of. I’m neutral on conditionality as a judge. Tell me in round whether it's good or bad. if you are conditional and you kick the alt/CP, I won't let the PMR go for the perm as an advocacy. TRICHOT: I prefer policy to fact and value and I particularly dislike fact debate. I will go by the AFF's definition of what type of round it unless the NEG wins a trichotomy argument (which should be structured like a topicality and have explicit voters). While I like the abstract idea of value rounds, I feel like most high school debaters make them too lay for my taste and use unstructured contentions with vague weighing mechanisms, so if you are going to do a value round please have a specific value and/or value criterion and structure your contentions with a claim, a warrant, an impact, and an argument about why it links to the value. In the college circuit "more harm than good" or "X is better than Y" typically means value, not fact, so I am inclined to prefer value cases on those resolutions, unless you choose to ignore the trichotomy and run them as policy. IMPACT CALCULUS: I prefer magnitude and probability, but I will vote on timeframe as well. I generally default to preferring magnitude but I find the standard arguments for probability more persuasive than the ones for magnitude when articulated in round. KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks on either the AFF or the NEG. I'm open to all types of criticisms, and I'm most familiar with Baudrillard and securitization. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide. REBUTTALS: Give me clear reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow. If your opponents make a new argument it is your responsibility to call point of order. I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for. DELIVERY/SPEAKER POINTS: I don't care about delivery in debate. I think that there is a place for judging people based on their delivery and that place is in IE's. I will give speaker points based on how good you are at debating and the choice of words you use, not based on who stands up or makes eye contact with me. I will sometimes add speaker points if someone says something really clever or funny (note: I love puns) or take them away if someone says something really offensive or acts disrespectful to their opponents (such as by refusing to take any questions or blatantly insulting them). I believe politeness is an oppressive social construct, so I don't care about how well teams follow social norms, but I do ask that you not be mean to your opponents. I think that "thank yous" are a waste of time, especially at tournaments that are running on a tight schedule - we are all here because we want to be. I am completely fine with partner communication, even if you "rudely" interrupt your partner during their speech. However, I will only flow what the current speaker says. Also, I believe that debaters should not wear professional clothes to tournaments because professional dress is a social construct that reinforces privilege. I won't vote you down on my own initiative for it, but I am receptive to critical arguments about why debaters should not dress professionally. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Some of my pet peeves as a judge: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- When people say their opponents wasted their time by forcing them to read theory (unless they are answering a timesuck RVI) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- When the AFF says they "believe" in the res or the NEG says they "don't believe" in it. You were assigned the topic at random. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- When the MO won't take questions in a debate where everyone else is taking questions (happens a lot in high school debate for some reason) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- When debaters act like they're in an IE/speech event <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- When debaters say thank yous before their speech <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- When debaters start their speech with a quote <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- When NEG says that Trump will roll back the plan <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- When people label their arguments as "contentions" rather than "advantages" or "disadvantages" in a policy round. Contentions are for fact and value rounds in my opinion, and if both sides have "contentions" it's confusing. Even in fact and value debate I prefer that the NEG calls their arguments "counter-contentions" <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Also, if you find me after the round, I'm always happy to explain my RFD in more detail or answer general questions about debate if you have the time. I enjoy giving back to the debate community by helping others learn about the activity. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">PUBLIC FORUM ONLY: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I judge PF like parli. The only difference is that I give more weight to carded evidence than analytics. Dropped arguments are still true arguments (though you can answer them anytime before FF to have the answer on my flow). I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks. While I am willing to listen to theory positions saying that particular types of arguments should not be allowed in PF, you have to prove that to me. I do not intervene. In fact, I find it easier to come to a decision if the AFF has a specific plan or specific interpretation of the resolution - I have heard too many debates where it was unclear whether the AFF was advocating for ballistic missiles other than THAAD. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules to be a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.