Matthew Chen ParadigmLast changed 11/10 4:45A EDT
put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
University of Chicago '22
gbx 19 update --- I have not judged or listened to a round since TOC 2019. As such, I'm not very accustomed to spreading. You'll have to build up to your top speed and slow down on tags and analytics a LOT. I'll call clear and slow as much as necessary, but if I miss something because you were going too fast that's on you.
also, because of my time out of debate, I'm not up to date on the newest strategies and philosophies. No, I haven't read whatever new author top lab dug up. Feel free to read it if you can explain it, but please realize that I won't know how you expect me to evaluate offense or syllogism indicts unless you spell it out very clearly for me. The inverse implication of this is true though - if you can clearly explain to me how you think I should evaluate offense and what framework arguments matter with a dense philosophical or critical position, your speaks will almost certainly be among the best I've ever given.
In order of arg style, I will probably be best at judging policy v policy, T/theory, or policy v K debates. I'm fine judging other styles but they'll definitely require more explanation and less speed.
tl:dr; you do you. be respectful to each other and everyone watching. additionally, feel free to tell me if i'm doing something/acting in a way that makes you feel unwelcome, either during the rfd or during a round.
1] Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, strawmanning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).
2] I'm not going to follow the speech doc, so signpost and be clear. I'll look after the round to verify evidence claims though, but generally debating evidence well is more important than shitting cards out.
3] weigh as early as possible - i.e. disad outweighs case in 1nc, t standards weighing in 1ar. The later you weigh, the lower my credence in your claims is
4] I have found that many analytics get too short to qualify as arguments - especially on theory. At the point where your drop the debater arguments are literally "1) deterrence 2) rectify time lost on theory 3) sets good norms" and then nothing else, you haven't made an argument.
5] I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence, if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitious is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.
6] then larger your claim is, the higher the threshold i have for a warrant. "there is no hope for progress ever" is a much larger, more broad claim than "this action can do something good", and as such, needs a stronger warrant to be won.
7] don't be offensive - going for "racism is ok", for example, is an easy way to lose
8] if you can't explain how your study was conducted/important control factors/etc. and your opponent calls you out on this, i'm probably not going to vote for said piece of evidence no matter how fantastic you insist it is or how qualified the author is. good ev matters, but being able to explain evidence matters more.