Rigall,Amy

Judging philosophy

I've been judging NFL tournaments for a few years now.

My background is in NCFCA LD in highschool, which was very traditional at the time. In college I competed in parli and NFA LD- Policy debate (which was also more traditional). Doing parli made me more familiar with game-theory arguments and more progressive styles of debate, though I do not prefer them and think that they are much less educational because of how divorced they are from most other things in real life scenarios, whether it be persuasive speaking, advocacy, or decision-making.

However, I don’t want to punish students for the styles of debate in which they’ve been coached, esp given tournament norms in a given geographical area.

On the other hand, debaters need to be flexible in their debate styles if they want to become accomplished debaters beyond their own regions.

Policy

>
 * I prefer traditional styles of debate as opposed to a game theory model. I would be thrilled to vote on stock issues or from a policy-maker standpoint.

K: I will listen to well-warranted kritiks, but would rather stick to case debate. If you run a K, please it clear how it ought to be weighed in the round and how you get access on the ballot. I think K vs. case debates can be quite interesting if they are clearly explained vs. pre-fiat K impacts with a discourse alt.

CP: I will only vote on competitive counterplans and think that PIC arguments have an uphill battle to win in terms of the grounds abuse arguments. I generally won’t vote for topical counterplans unless it goes unchallenged by the Aff. However, if I effectively have 2 Aff cases in the round, I will give presumption to the actual Aff team.

Speaking: I will not vote on speaking alone, but I do believe that debate is a communication event as well as one based on arguments and if the delivery is so rapid that I can’t hear it, it won’t go on the flow even if you said it. If it were only about the evidence, I’d just read your cases and then make a decision. I understand the need to get through arguments, but dislike speed as a tactic. Go for a few well warranted and explained arguments vs 10 blipped out ones. If a team is rude, excessively speeds (after I’ve said “clear” ) I will not hesitate to give low speaks, even if they win the round.

Evidence: Evidence is important but believe that it needs to be contextualized within the round and that the debater should be able to clearly explain what it is saying and its impact in the round. If a certain piece of evidence is in question, I will look at it after the round to consider the context, the actual meaning of the evidence, and if it was appropriately cut to reflect its meaning.

T: I will listen to topicality arguments, but will only vote on it if clear ground abuse is demonstrated.

I will do my best to flow everything that I hear in the round and not intervene unless necessary in order to reach a decision, however the above explanation gives a glimpse into how I will weigh the arguments and what I will look favorably upon.

LD

>
 * I am a traditional judge who wants to hear about the values, criterion, and contentions in the debate. If you depart from the traditional LD model, I will expect an in-round justification for doing so. If someone challenges a game-theory argument based on the NFL rules for LD, I will accept that response without a significant amount of justification, though would appreciate some argumentation as to why rules are key to fairness and important for real life.

>
 * I want to vote on argumentation related to the resolution, rather than discourse in the round, but I will listen to anything clearly explained. I value content over structure in the arguments, though appreciate organization and clarity in the round.

>
 * I personally do not believe that plans ought to be part of LD debate, but will accept them if the debater clearly explains why they provide a helpful demonstration of the truth of the resolution and how they link. However, I will gladly accept arguments from the neg as to why plans are abusive and not appropriate for LD if there is a challenge. I will listen to topicality arguments, but vote on it only if clear abuse is demonstrated.

>
 * I will do my best to flow everything that I hear in the round and not intervene unless necessary in order to reach a decision, however the above explanation gives a glimpse into how I will weigh the arguments.

PF -

Give me a weighing mechanism in the round: A standard, Net Ben etc. Please no speeding. This style of debate is meant to be more conversational and accessible. Please sign post and provide clear clash with your opponent’s case. Give me voters!