Bederman,+Evan

I spent four years debating and/or judging for Scarsdale High School. Graduated last year, so I'm not rusty. I'm okay with speed, as long as you're actually clear. However, this isn't an invitation to set a world record. Before the round I'll ask you if you mind me shouting "CLEAR!". If both debaters agree, I'll yell as I see fit, otherwise I will stop flowing as soon as I can no longer understand you and I will stare you down intently until you notice me and hopefully speak more clearly. I don't like to intervene much, and will let you two handle CX and prep amongst yourselves. I'll do no more than set a timer if you need me to. If something's said in CX, you need to actually restate (NOTE: restate /= repeat) it in the round, not just reference it. Act as if I didn't really witness it, and you're using it as evidence much like a card.

I'll entertain any argument, as long as the links to the standard/burden/whatever and ultimately to the resolution are clear. I want you to tell me your arguments, and use evidence as actual evidence. Don't just say a card and then its impact; tell me the argument in your own words, proving to me that you actually understand what you're saying. The author you're quoting should //back you up//rather than argue for you. When explaining the argument itself, Matt Dunay says it best: "Pretend I am an idiot when you make complicated arguments and go out of your way to explain them. Debaters tend to think they are a lot clearer than they actually are, and I can only vote for what I understand". Also, (again from Matt Dunay): "I will only call evidence after the round if there is an in round dispute over the words or meaning of the card. Otherwise, I feel as though this is intervention". The two of you should sort out what a piece of evidence actually says, and instead work on linking it to your arg and standard. I actually kind of enjoy "out there" arguments, but they have to be clearly explained and they //have to be topical// with a clear link.

In rebuttals, the two keys to my heart (and, more importantly, my ballot) are weighing and extensions:

Weighing analysis should (read: must) involve substantive analysis of the two arguments, and you must specifically name on what factor you're outweighing (e.g., scope, timeframe, etc). If your opponent has already done proper weighing analysis, then you should probably say why they're either wrong or why what you're outweighing on matters more. If your opponent has already done weighing, but badly, then this should be even easier. Pro tip: when rebutting an opponent's argument, just give a short signpost to let me (and the opponent) know where you are; no need to repeat their entire argument, it'll just bore me and waste your time.

Extensions need to be actual extensions. This means you say the word "extend" somewhere in there, and you also restate your claim __and warrant__ and impact! It is crucial that you restate the warrant, otherwise the justification for your argument isn't extended throughout the round and I have nothing to vote on but empty claims. Also, when extending your warrant it makes it easier to effectively __weigh__ your arguments, so this is for your benefit too. I don't like extensions through ink. I don't do any intervention in the round, and won't drop an argument or a debater just for extending through ink. However, I would drop an argument if the bad extension is caught, and the dropped rebuttals are extended well.

I'm alright with theory, but nothing too crazy. The more paper I'm forced to use, the less happy I'm going to be. This won't factor into my decision, but please just be sensible. And don't run it unless there's actual abuse. If I don't see the abuse, then I'll be more inclined to believe the debater who points out there's no abuse. In your speeches, you should make the round as crystal clear as possible. The judge is supposed to do as little work as possible in evaluating the round. If you've argued well, then you should have made it obvious that you won.

I'm one of those crazy judges that actually takes into account speaking ability when giving out speaks. If you giving crushing arguments, but you speak incredibly quickly at monotone, loudly stomp your foot, don't look at me, don't signpost, etc, then expect something around 24 or 25. I don't give speaks lower than that, and generally I give you the benefit of the doubt. My average is probably a 27 or 27.5. Don't freak out over this stuff, just do a good job, look confident, speak clearly and not in monotone and overall speak the way you know you're supposed to. The point of this paragraph is just that a good debater is not necessarily a good speaker, and vice versa (meaning, if the tournament allows it, I can and will give low-wins). Also, in a very close round good speaking ability will probably make me more inclined to want to vote for you.