Nolan,+Andy

(Andy Nolan is an attorney. He coaches and judges for GDS occasionally and has judged for / helped with Marquette in the past)

Judging Philosophy Version 7.0 -- I'm simplifying this profile, so adaptation is a bit easier.

BACKGROUND: I debated four years in high school for Marquette in Wisconsin, debated for three years at Georgetown. I coached for Georgetown Day while in college and then was the head coach for Marquette for two years after. While in law school, I returned to coaching GDS. I get lured back into to judge *occasionally* now. Keep that in mind-- my knowledge of the topic is very limited, and I'm probably a bit rusty.

PHILOSOPHY: My basic philosophy going into judging a debate round is that I want to intervene as little as possible for the debaters in making my decision. This is not that I don’t have any biases, but going into the round I try to limit those as much as possible.

Nonethless here's a few simple tips:

(1) __**I enjoy good ol’ fashion policy debate**__. If you’re not sure what you do fits this, it probably doesn’t. I feel that I can evaluate rounds best when both teams imagine the policy proposed by the aff actually passes. For the last decade, I've cut politics files; I enjoy those debates a ton. Honestly, I'd like to say that I'm willing to listen to any arguments-- but I will readily admit that I am not the best judge for you if all you go for are critical arguments or if a central argument of yours is that the role of the ballot is something other than an endorsement/rejection of the resolution or an example of the resolution.

(2) **Where I will intervene**. I don’t like new arguments in the rebuttals. I think they’re pretty unfair to either side, and I definitely think judges are WAY to lax on it. I really try to trace every argument in the final rebuttals to something said earlier in the debate. If something in the 1ar or 2nr is flagged as being new, I’m much more apt to look to see if that’s the case. If it’s new in the 2ar, I will most definitely throw it out (even if its true). Otherwise, ethical issues will be the only other place where I will intervene (e.g. clipping, cross reading, extreme sandbagging of arguments).

(3) **Probably the most important part of this philosophy** *** A note on your** **speaking and my flowing** in the round. Debaters are getting more and more unclear (or maybe I'm getting older and crankier). Judges are not robots-- we do not process everything you say and put it on paper unless its clearly articulated. If you mumble, I don't flow it. If you say something in a quiet voice, I may not catch it. If you speak without varying voice modulation, its not only excrutiatingly boring, but I will likely miss stuff. Speaking fast should be like speaking normally but.... faster (i.e. just as you don't speak in monotones in daily conversation, you shouldn''t do it in a debate round). I only flow when I hear an argument being made-- therefore, if you say an author's name or "perm" and nothing else, it may not be written down. Topicality and Theory blocks should not be read like cards are read-- I will not flow theory / topicality if its not clear. Advantage CP's with a million planks should not be read at top speed. Tags should be clearly enunciated. This being said, the above is not a complaint about **speed**; this a complaint about **clarity**.

(4) **Topicality--** I tried making a fairly complex scheme in my judge philosophy in the past. I'm making it less complicated, but premised on the same idea. I'm very sympathetic to reasonability arguments when couched in terms of good evidence.

(5) **CP Theory--** Somewhere the community jumped the shark-- I feel like conditional advocacies, especially multiple contradictory advocacies, is more abusive than not. My notion of the CP is that it acts as an opportunity cost disad in the round. If you can prove that a permutation can occur and is net beneficial, then you have proven a no-link to the opportunity cost DA. (This is to say arguments like multiple perms bad is as persuasive as saying multiple no link arguments are bad.) This also means, that straight turning a CP with solvency take outs or disads, is just that-- a straight turn and the neg is stuck with it. Otherwise, my bias is that PICS tend to be good for debate, as do agent CP's. I rarely think theory is a reason to vote against the team outside of issues I already discussed.

(6) **Paperless--** I will run an informal clock of five minutes per side to ready your speeches if you are paperless. If you exceed this five minute limit, I will start deducting from your regular prep time.