Matt Moorhead ParadigmLast changed 4/22 11:38A CDT
appleton east 19'
no i don't hack neg, three of those rounds were concessions
this used to be longer, but i'm going to make this nice and simple. i have a lot of opinions about debate, those opinions rarely factor into my decision. i do not like intervening and will listen to arguments as long as they have a claim, warrant, and impact. i won't vote on arguments that i am required to warrant with background knowledge. my paradigm = a way to get better speaker points, not an all-or-nothing interpretation of debate.
here are my opinions that will guide your strategy:
1. i debated for four years for appleton east. i did national circuit ld and dabbled in policy. i broke at nsda nats, qualed to the toc, and will be teaching at nsd flagship this summer. i mainly read policy arguments and kritiks, but i have experience with every kind of debate.
2. my favorite judges were tom evnen, danny frank-siegel, nirmal balachundhar, and brian kunz.
3. my ideal round in high school involved impact turns (anything from dedev to food security bad), cheater counterplans, plenty of case debate, policy tricks (case o/w, framework, methodological pluralism) on the aff, or k tricks (root cause, floating piks) on the neg.
4. i like when people have clearly put time into understanding their position. i am more cognitively biased towards enjoying rounds with arguments that i have historically enjoyed, but reading arguments i didn't like as a debater is not the brightline for good speaks or the win/loss.
5. voting on truths is easier than voting on lies, but debate is cool because we play devils advocate. maybe nuking russia to take out their nukes is better than waiting for them to nuke us.
6. theory debates often lack a defense of your model of debate. just because something is good in that round doesn't mean it's good in every round. this is why i find myself voting neg more often in framework debates. i love k affs, i love voting for them, and if you read one don't be afraid to pref me, just please know that your model of debate is important.
7. buzzwords are not arguments, i will not correct your theory for you, whether it be in a phil debate or a cp/da debate. this does not mean that you have to explain what an rvi is, but that you can't just say "there is desire inherent in the lack".
8. phil debates usually are bad impact calc. epistemic modesty prolly makes the most sense and i find it hard evaluating phil debates absent hijacks.
9. organization is very important and i won't vote on arguments that you know you sped through too fast for me to catch the warrant. similarly, judge instruction is under utilized, rebuttals are for convincing me to vote for you and picking battles you think you can win.
10. your speaks will probably be fine and if you're really curious, i'll tell you them.
Full Judging Record
|Debating the Discord Part 1||1546009200 12/28/2018||CX||5 R5||Champs independent JM||Daveed||Neg|
|Debating the Discord Part 1||1546009200 12/28/2018||LD||4 R4||West Linn DT||GrouchoMarxist||Neg|
|Debating the Discord Part 1||1546009200 12/28/2018||LD||4 R4||LS1||BBallerKim||Neg|
|Debating the Discord Part 1||1546009200 12/28/2018||CX||2 R2||Big Brains BG||Neg|
|Debating the Discord Part 1||1546009200 12/28/2018||LD||1 R1||Rina||Big Chungus||Neg|