Tannenwald,+Alan

**UPDATED 12/19/17:** I have been coaching and judging Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate and Speech for Newton South High School (MA) for 16 years. I competed in Congressional Debate for Newton South for 2 years and APDA parliamentary debate for 2 years and did moot court in law school. In "real life," I am an attorney for a technology company and was previously a trial attorney. **PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE PARADIGM:** I've decided to simplify my paradigm to help debaters adapt to my preferences more easily. **TL/DR:** "Flay" judge. Truth over tech. Go slow. No jargon. Weigh and give me framework early in round. I need narrative and warrants. (1) I don't care what side of the room you sit on. I will not track your prep time, time your speeches or time crossfire. I am a "germaphobe" - do not shake my hand. (2) **I'M A "FLAY"/TRADITIONAL JUDGE:** I am a "flay" judge with a truth > tech paradigm. I flow and try to vote on the flow as much as possible but I won't vote on racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. arguments or evidence that is misrepresented. (3) **SPEED:** I do not like speed. If you go fast, I will miss things on my flow. (4) **WEIGHING/FRAMEWORK/ NARRATIVE:** I want weighing, framework and a cohesive narrative. Quantitative impacts mean nothing to me if I don't know how to weigh them. Please try to introduce your preferred weighing framework early in the round and call it out clearly. If you do not provide a framework, I will use my own. Don't make the round into a framework debate. The best way to win my ballot is to win on your framework **and** your opponent's framework. (6) **JARGON:** I really do not want to hear debate jargon in round. If you are going to use terms like "terminal defense," you need to explain to me what it means in lay terms. (7) **SUMMARY SPEECHES:** I do not want line-by-line summaries or summaries that are like mini-rebuttal speeches. Your best bet is to have your summary consist of voting issues with a brief framework overview at the beginning. If a voting issue involves one of your defensive arguments, you need to extend defense into summary. (8) **FINAL FOCUS: ***Slow down* and give me voting issues and weighing analysis. (9) **CROSSFIRE:** I don't usually flow crossfire, as I try to use at as a time to evaluate how your arguments are interacting with each other. If something happens in crossfire that you want to be a voting issue, please mention it in summary (unless grand cross) and final focus. (10) **HOW I VOTE:** I will only vote on arguments that are in summary and final focus. The only exception will be if there is a complete tie based on those arguments, in which case I may review arguments made earlier in the round in order to find an objective voting mechanism. This almost never happens (I've done this like once in all of my years of judging PF). (11) **DROPPED ARGUMENTS:** I consider arguments that are not responded to in rebuttal to be dropped and conceded arguments. (12) **MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE:** Please don't misrepresent evidence. I will tank your speaker points if I call a card and discover that you are misrepresenting what it says and, if it's a voting issue, I will give you the loss. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">(13) **PLANS/COUNTERPLANS:** I will not vote on plans or counterplans. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">(14) **THEORY:** I almost never listen to theory debate. The only situation in which I will do so if a team is running a case that is just intolerably abusive. To win a theory debate with me as your judge, you need to (a) clearly identify the abuse with specificity and (b) clearly explain how the abuse precludes a fair debate. To discourage people from running theory arguments, I will automatically dock 1 speaker point for each debater who runs it and loses. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">(15) **KRITIKS:** I will listen to kritiks/alternative lenses through which to analyze a resolution (these are really just interesting frameworks) but they need to be topical and have extra strong supporting warrants. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">(16) **SPEAKER POINTS:** I use the scale that Chris Palmer demonstrates during the opening meeting for TOC each year: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">30=That was TANNENWILD!!! (I give out maybe one or two 30s per tournament) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">29=Hells Yeah!!! (Above my baseline - typical points assigned to an excellent speaker) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">28=Woo hoo! (Homer simpson voice) (My baseline) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">27=Good <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">26=Meh <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">25=Ughh <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">24=ARGHH! (Charlie Brown voice) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">23=See me in Tab after this round is over. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**LD/POLICY PARADIGM:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I almost never judge these events. However, if I am judging you in one of them, treat me as a lay judge and don't spread. LD'ers - I am looking for traditional LD, not post-2002 circuit style LD. Note that I was a Philosophy Minor (almost a major) in college so I am fairly familiar with most famous Western philosophers and their writings.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE PARADIGM:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">This was my event in high school so I have some strong opinions about it. Analysis and quality of evidence is key. But it shouldn't be at the expense of your delivery. For me, conversational delivery is far more appealing than screaming/arguing. To get my "1", you should aim to be the refreshing voice of reason in the chamber. In judging, I typically weigh analysis/evidence 66% vs. delivery 33%. I penalize for rehash, especially if you try to extend one-sided debate in order to sneak an extra speech in. You are much better off giving fewer original speeches than multiple speeches that rehash other debaters' arguments. After a couple of cycles of debate, you should be clashing with and referring to other debaters' arguments. I don't like gimmicks or cheesy jokes unless they are especially clever and tasteful. During cross-ex, you should ask thought provoking questions that illustrate the flaws in your colleagues' arguments but you should not be virulently attacking them. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**SPEECH PARADIGM:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I have experience of judging all speech events at the national level. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Extemp:** I weigh analysis/sources heavier than delivery but that does not mean I don't care about delivery. While humor is good, it should not distract from the substance of your arguments, all of which should have a logical flow to them and have logical warrants, impacts and links. To be clear, if you decide to do a stand up comedy routine in front of me, I almost certainly will rank you last in the round. As with Congressional Debate, I much prefer a conversational speaking style to a robotic one. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Oratory:** In Oratory, I like oratories that raise the stakes and provide a new, fresh perspective on a pertinent societal issue, preferably while slightly tugging at my emotions. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Interp:** In interp, please keep it classy. I have seen blatantly homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic and other completely inappropriate humor at national championship and circuit tournaments in recent years and that type of behavior is a recipe for a "6" from me. Best practice in interp is to ensure that your cutting - however serious or humorous - tells a cohesive story, demonstrates character development and preferably imparts a larger message that is relevant to my life. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Duo:** I tend to prefer substantive duos over those that are just tap dancing shows. This is not to say that I won't give the "1" to a tech-heavy performance or that I am biased against humorous duos. I am simply saying that I am going to judge you more on the quality of your acting than on your tech. And the best way to demonstrate good acting ability is to use a substantive cutting that tells a cohesive story, demonstrates character development and preferably imparts a larger message that is relevant to my life.