Vered,+Michelle


 * School affiliation:** None currently, formerly coached at Brophy College Prep in Arizona
 * Experience with debate:** Debated 3 years in college for Arizona State (went to the NDT twice), 3 years in high school on the national circuit
 * Updated:** Feb 2018


 * Disclaimer** - It has now been 4 years since I last judged or watched a debate, so I am not familiar with the current topic or any newer trends with arguments from the last couple of years. I may also be a little rustier on speed, but I will call out and let you know if you're going too fast. However, while it's been a few years, I do have a fair amount of experience and familiarity with policy debate and I am open to hearing a range of arguments.

Below is my judging philosophy based on how I found myself judging when I last judged regularly, in 2014.

I've often found when judging or answering questions about my paradigm that people seem overly concerned with changing what type of arguments they read in order to adapt to me. I'll listen to what you want to say, whether that's a 1 off K, a highly technical politics debate, or an aff that criticizes the resolution. I do reward teams speaker point-wise that have done their research and prepared for a particular debate. I.e., specific case debate or a K that is well applied to the aff is much more enjoyable to judge than if you than opened up your backfiles and pulled out wipeout. But aside from that, I'd much rather you adapt to and think about //how// I will evaluate the type of argument you want to go for.
 * Philosophy**


 * Evidence:** I'd much rather you'd read fewer cards and explain the ones you do read. If the only way you use your evidence in the debate is to extend the tagline, you probably would have been better off not reading it. Under-highlighting is an epidemic. I do think that evidence is a lot more important for policy debates than k debates. Reading cards on a uniqueness debate is pretty straightforward. If evidence substitutes for explanation in a k debate, you're in a lot more trouble because k cards are often rather theoretical and you must apply the k to the aff in order to win.


 * Style:** I care a lot about organization on the flow and making sure you stick to some sort of structure. 2AC order structures the off case, 1NC order structures the case debate, and if you are going to do anything different, be extremely clear. I am not a big fan of long overviews because they are more difficult to flow, so if you have to give one, tell me where to flow it or if I need a new sheet of paper. I don't care about tag team cross x. You aren't going to be too fast as long as you're clear.


 * Prep time:** __**Prep ends when you take the flash drive out of the computer. I've seen too many people abusing paperless to steal prep.**__


 * Disads** - I love a good disad debate. Not enough people go for just the disad and a ton of case arguments. I follow politics very closely, so I will appreciate debaters who can bring subtle distinctions and background knowledge into the debate. Evidence comparison and making distinctions wins the uniqueness and link portion of the debate. To help me evaluate the DA overall, you need impact framing as well as even if type statements that tell me how I should reconcile the debate if you win parts of the disad but the aff wins other parts.


 * CPs** - I lean neg on theory for things like the States CP, International Fiat, and the Conditions CP, but tell me why they're bad and I'll listen. Unless explicitly told otherwise, if the 2NR goes for the CP, I won't judge kick the counterplan after the round and also evaluate the status quo.


 * Kritiks:** The best Ks are topic specific or contextualized to the aff. A strong speech on the K should be making multiple references to lines in the 1AC evidence and moments from cross-x, using historical examples, and explaining the link and impact arguments in the context of specific affirmative advantages or solvency claims. You also need to be winning the framing questions for how my ballot should operate and how I should view the aff's impacts if you win some of your link and impact arguments.


 * Non-traditional affirmatives:** I am open to affs that don't affirm the topic and that impact turn framework. I am also open to voting on framework. For both sides, impact comparison, particularly in the final 2 rebuttals, is very important. By default I tend to be heavily centered around the line by line and approach debate in a very rationalistic way, so if you want me to evaluate the debate in another manner you should be very clear about what you want me to do and why and I will try my best to adapt.


 * Theory:** I default to believing that conditionality is good but you can convince me otherwise. Except for conditionality, theory is probably a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Teams that are more likely to win my ballot on theory line by line the theory debate and impact their arguments instead of relying on reading blocks.


 * Topicality:** I default to competing interpretations, but I tend to give the aff a little more leeway on meeting the interp if it seems arbitrary. I'm probably not the right judge for reading some clever new interp that may not exactly be on the side of truth. When going for T, it is extremely helpful for me if you can list and compare the particular ground that is gained or lost and what affs are included and not included.