Matthew Johns, I am a Speech/Debate coach with a Social Studies background. I am a former Lincoln Douglas and Crossfire (Prehistoric caveman version of Public Forum Debate) Debater.
Email for Doc Sharing: matthew.johns@midlandisd.net
IMPORTANT NOTE: I am hearing impaired, I can keep up pretty well if you speak clearly. If you speak too fast, so that I can't understand and flow your argument, I will have a hard time assigning you a victory. Sharing a copy/digital version of the constructive/cards is a plus.
Theory Paradigm: This involves a combination of Policymaker and Game Theorist. I am well versed in Social Studies topics, a History/Political Science major, and am an AP teacher. This means I tend to focus on disadvantages and counter plans to an argument. (Policymaker) Whereas the Game Theorist paradigm suggests I am open to a provocative plan (that might seem absurd or crazy to others) provided it can establish a logical and distinct advantage over the opposing view/plan.
Civility and Decorum matters, so be polite to your opponents, including in the questioning period. You can be firm in cross while being polite. There is a decay of civility in American politics that is concerning to me, and I would like our experience to reflect what is very best about us.
General: I detest spreading as it cheapens the debate into a purely technical hot mess. A humorous thought...could you imagine an actual televised debate where candidates used spreading? Make my job of flowing easy, signpost accordingly and don't rush through your contention's main points. I will not make links and connections for you. I am noticing more and more that teams are failing or inadequately addressing links to impacts. Be sure to drive your impacts with good support. Be sure to clash and weigh where it is appropriate. Definitions are a great way to control the boundaries of the debate when clash is apparent.
Congress: Be sure to clash! I cannot stand it when Congress Debate has people rehashing the same points. It gets tired quickly and I will assign low speaker points if you do not bring new arguments or significantly good analysis of previously stated points.
Lincoln Douglas: See definitions above; I don't love a debate that devolves into definitions, but it can be extremely advantageous to control framing. Framework does not matter if solvency is ignored, and solvency doesn't matter if framework is ignored. If framework and value/value crit are a wash, then I divert back to solvency. I've noticed Aff teams trying to sneak in new points/arguments in their last speech. I will completely disregard if you attempt it, and the speaker points will reflect this.
Public Forum: I've seen too many policy debaters creeping their spreading and incivility into Public Forum Debate. This is meant to be accessible to an educated public audience, not pure technical debate. Go to policy if that's more your cup of tea. I will technical flow, but argumentation and weighing are mechanisms that often wins debates in my paradigm. Evidence analysis matters as well. I've seen really suspect sources that debaters try to slip through.
Policy: If you strike me here, I understand. Spreading is a no go for me. Beyond that Policy lends itself to being a more technical debate than Public Forum that should be lucid, clear, and explained in great depth without spreading. Quality > Quantity.
