Monagle,+Andrew

Updated: November 16, 2016

I've been a coach at Ridge High School since the 2011-2012 season and before that I coached at Manchester-Essex High School. I've found myself judging a lot more LD at circuit tournaments recently. As such, I have some very strong preferences. I generally give the readers-digest form of my preferences in round so there is an understanding of what I want to see, but if you blatantly ignore my verbal paradigm or this long-form one, you're only hurting yourself. Please read this carefully before each tournament as I do frequently update it, and my preferences do change depending on things I loved/hated at the tournament before. For ease of reading, I've bolded the most important things.


 * Speed**: The faster you go, the more clear you'll have to be. I'll say clear **up to two times** per speech if I can't understand you. For me, "clear" is equivalent to "slow down and enunciate." After that, it's your job to adapt. If I can't understand you, I can't flow what you're saying. I suggest if you're going to be utilizing speed, start off slower so I can get used to your cadence, and speed up from there. A good strategy to figure out whether or not I'm with you is to occasionally look up at me while you speak. If I'm staring blankly at you or look confused, chances are I'm not flowing and I am in fact confused. To be clear, I can flow debaters who speak at 500+ wpm. You just need to enunciate and speak at a volume loud enough for human ears to hear.


 * Kritiks** (including narratives and performative arguments): I love good kritiks. If you're a K debater, you should feel comfortable preffing me a 1 or 2. I don't care if you're topical as long as you justify why you are not topical. **Please make sure the link story is clear if you are on the negative side.** Slow down a tad when you read the ROB/ROJ. If I miss it, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. I'm much better at evaluating K's and other policy based arguments than I am uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow.

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) listening to theory debate because I think it's interesting and relevant. --When a shell is missing links or is poorly explained, I often find that the theory is more abusive than the abuse itself. If you run 4+ shells in the NR, for example, I'll have a **much** lower threshold for responses. --If the Neg position is actually abusive, I'm receptive to theory in the 1AR. --I find that AFC and theory that is run against out-of-round abuses (i.e. disclosure theory) or abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wi-fi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education. I have a very low threshold for responses for these types of arguments, and speaks will be low as well. Running these things won't earn you more than a 26.9. If you feel like you can't debate in front of me without using these arguments, please consider striking me. You speaks will thank you. --If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR, I won't vote on it unless it's the only offense in the round. To be abundantly clear: **I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the last rebuttal**.
 * T/Theory: ** I'm still not comfortable with the literature. I'd much rather hear substantive debate, but I'll still evaluate it. Be sure to give me an idea of how the shells and theory function in the round and how it interacts with the other side. **I prefer theory is read at a slower pace than other positions. PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.** If you cannot do that, please consider striking me. Reading shell after shell after shell as fast as you can makes me as a judge very confused and frustrated (considering what my paradigm says, who can blame me for being frustrated when it happens). That being said, I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:


 * (Note: "Lower threshold for responses" only means that I'm very receptive to logical arguments against that position...not that I'll vote for something that is not extended)**


 * CP/DISAD/Plans:** Like I said, I really like policy args so if you're going read CPs, DisAds, plans, or are planning to LARP, pref me relatively high. It's easier for me to conceptualize something when it's put in the context of the resolution or real world. That being said, please slow down when you read your plan text. The amount of times I missed the plan text in the last several tournaments I've judged is way too high for my liking. Don't throw away the opportunity to run an arg that I will like/think is cool.


 * Extensions**: **Extensions need to be clearer than a card name;** you have to extend an actual argument, not just the card**. I highly value efficient extensions. Summarize the warrants and impacts in a clear, concise way.** Most importantly, make sure you tell me how the arg functioned in the round**. One of the easiest ways to pick up my ballot is by extending (and weighing) arguments, and giving me clear-cut voters in your last rebuttal.**


 * Arguments I don't like**: If you run a case advocating for something else that is objectively harmful to an individual outside (and sometimes inside) the round, I'll drop you. I think opression is bad, so I'll vote against any racist, sexist, or "opression good" type arguments on face. If you run it without a trigger warning, I'll drop you with as few speaks as the tournament will allow me to give. **If you want to run this type of argument and cannot debate without running this type of argument, please strike me**. I do not like the type of discourse it promotes. I think these types of arguments are educationally bad for the event and generally offensive. Much like I did a few weeks ago, I will drop my pen and stare at you when I hear this type of argument. You will not pick up my ballot.
 * --Do not interpret this as** a willingness to drop "nuclear extinction good" type args. I've voted on this type of argument more times than I can count.


 * General ways to make me angry:** I understand the merits of swearing in round if the card you cut includes explicit language. But cursing for the sake of it makes me very angry. I firmly believe that swearing hinders academic discourse as it creates a hostile environment. Unless it's a question of ethos or is used in an educational context, don't do it (i.e. randomly calling your opponent's argument "shitty" will earn you a loss**).** If you cannot debate the round without cursing at your opponent or talking about their arguments in such a way that it involves swearing, strike me. I WILL unconditionally drop a debater who curses outside of an academic/persuasive context/the reading of a card.

--There is this new phenomenon of starting email chains between judges/competitors so everyone can see cases. It's like flashing cases, only the illegal way! Reminder for debaters who love doing this: Using the internet in round or sending/receiving data via wired or wireless connection from inside or outside the competition room is a violation of NSDA and NCFL rules.
 * Flashing Cases/Computer Use:** While it's not my favorite practice by any stretch, I don't mind flashing cases. If flashing takes more than what I'd call a reasonable amount of time, I'll just start running your prep. I've been in too many rounds where flashing has taken far too long. My advice is to **flash cases to you opponent before the posted start time of the round.** I will not hold up the round for you to flash cases. I will never want a case flashed to me. I still believe that this is a communication activity. Even if you're spreading, your opponent/the judge should be able to accurately flow. If the speed is such that your opponent needs to take 60+ seconds to read through portions of the case to construct a question in CX, your speaks will be low. TLDR: Flashing is fine, just don't use that as an excuse not to be clear.


 * Evidence:** I rarely call of evidence. When I do it's because I believe that a debater has miscut a card. It's relatively easy to tell the difference between a card being miscut because the debater didn't understand the literature/how to cut a card to begin with, and a debater who miscut a card to give themselves a dishonest advantage in round. Academic honesty is important to me. Evidence rules violations/ethical violations are unacceptable and will result in speaks between 1-20 (whatever the lowest the tournament will allow), and a loss.


 * Speaker points:** I start at 28 and move up or down the scale from there. <20-24.9: reserved for people who are offensive, offensively bad, miscut evidence, and just generally are terrible people in round. 25-26: You're not going to break. 27-28 you're pretty good. You should make it to the runoff/first elim round. 28.1-29.5: solid all around. You'll be a late elim round contender. 29.6-30: I think you'll win the tournament. I DO give low point wins when the round requires that I do. They're always justified in my RFD.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please ask. I'd rather you debate knowing full well what I like and dislike rather than reading your case and praying to the LD gods. Don't chance it...just ask me.