So, my paradigm. When I judge, I will be using two different frameworks.

Argumentation:

Firstly, looking at argumentation within the Lincoln-Douglas debate format, the debater should use the value-criterion framework as the ends of their argument, and he/she should use contentions as the means to reach the end of that value-criterion end. Since LD is a value debate, I do not want to only hear about the information concerning the topic at hand -- I need to know why that information is important to your value and criterion, which should uphold your side of the resolution.

I cannot stress enough the importance of your case fitting together in a logical and grammatical framework. If evidence is equally appealing on both sides of the debate and neither debater drops any arguments, I will immediate look to who upholds their value and criterion the best, which means one should tell me why this information is important. The debater appeals to me, so I should not have to make conclusions on my own, except whose case is better.

Speaking:

Secondly, your speaking, which may not reflect if you will win the round or not but can help after preliminary rounds, should be understandable: Do not spread or speak to fast. You should enunciate your words, especially for the online rounds.

The framework I will use to judge your speaking points is the first three liberal arts: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If you do not know what those are, do not worry. Aristotle, and many others, say they are inherent in people, so focus on speaking well and persuasively. Remember, you are trying to convince me your case is what we OUGHT to do, so have some energy. I do not want to fall asleep. However, not too much energy. You should use your own judgement. If you are to fault on either side, fault on the side of too much.

Finally, this last paragraph goes along with argumentation too. So, when debating, do not attack you opponent or his/her person but their argument. The issues could be personal to you, but the debate should not involve Ad Hominem: attacking the person instead of their argument. That would be a waste of my time, your time, and your opponents. I will almost always give you a loss if you decide to attack your opponent.

If I am not looking at LD I would appeal greatest to the level or argumentation and logic that you uphold in your debate. Information is extremely important, but it cannot stand on its own, especially when you are debating something. Tell me why this information is important.

Thank you for reading, and I wish you the best.

Northwestern University 

Norman '18

3rd Place LD NSDA Nationals. A Bid here or there. 6 Years Debating LD.

Email (Include me in Chains): matthewylie@gmail.com

------------

Bullet Point Version:

- I am an experienced debater who dealt primarily in more “traditional” styles personally, but is well versed in virtually all forms of LD

- Tech > Truth. However do not construe this to mean that you are immune from your opponent pointing out falsehoods.

- I will hear all forms of arguments, but vastly prefer topic based debate to a K that could be run on any topic (see bolded sections below)

(Generally I like Phil > “Traditional” > Policy/LARP > K > Theory, but that doesn’t mean Theory couldn't beat Phil in front of me by any stretch of the imagination)

- Impacts are important, framing even more so. Write the ballot for me at all times possible. I default comparative worlds, but can be easily convinced to become a truth-tester with the proper framing mechanism. Other rolls of the ballot aren't off the table, but are less likely to be included in my RFD. 19 times out of 20 I will evaluate the round through the perspective of the winning framework, if you lose the framework debate make sure you access your opponent's framing or the ballot will be over.

- Speed is fine, will yell clear twice before I stop flowing, and would like a doc to follow along if possible (see below for details). If the only reason you are spreading is to read multiple versions of the same card/warrant/link, expect me to nag you about it after round.

- Theory ideally should only be deployed in cases of real abuse rather than in every round. In general I default drop the arg, RVIs are acceptable but require justification.

- If you have questions please ask, more than happy to answer

------------

Long Form:

I come from a more traditional HS debate background in Oklahoma, however I also engaged with progressive debate at the national level and dabbled heavily with the arguments -if not the style- of circuit debate.

I believe debate is an academic game that requires you to adapt to the judges in front of you, but that judges must also adapt to their surroundings. If I'm at a circuit tournament I will be much more sympathetic to progressive argumentation then if I'm at a small traditional tournament and vice versa.

Like most judges, I still have some opinions:

The Aff generally has the burden to uphold the desirability of the resolution whereas the Neg generally must disprove the resolution through presenting reasons as to why that desirability does not withstand scrutiny or some other procedural objection. Hence I am disinclined to listen to non-topical cases though I will not vote you down for it at face value. Non-topical (or loosely topical) offs urging me to "change the debate space" which have been being read for years if not decades with little to no affect on the debate space or society writ-large are rarely convincing to me and I only tend to vote off them if they are very weakly or not contested; the resolution asks a morality question within itself, there is more or less always plenty of ground to attack systemic issues through the lens of the resolution itself instead of trying to force the debate space beyond the general obligations of your opponent (e.g. links of omission).

I really really want to evaluate the round through someone's FW/Framing, otherwise will default to comparative worlds. Impacting is one of the most important parts of debate, and I believe that impacting is done best when it is done with a framing mechanism that truly highlights your impacts and position as correct and desirable. Framing usually defines the roll of the ballot for me, and I will evaluate the round through the winning FW unless it is essentially ignored as an issue by both debaters in which case I will default comparative worlds.

I'm inclined to go for arguments rooted in logic. This is not the same thing as an argument being carded and I have heard some of the best arguments in round made purely analytically and plenty of terrible carded ones. This is also not the same as an argument being realistic, as realistically pretty much nothing is going to end in extinction impacts, but I would prefer to not have to stretch my imagination when it comes to your Links.

I guess this makes me mostly Tech > Truth, but don't make claims that straight-up defy logic (a real example: Our mothers are actually hippopotamuses and the government is lying to us about it).

If you have any specific arguments you aren’t sure about running in front of me, ask. I tried writing about each individual type of arguments and couldn’t figure out a way to do it that didn’t involve creating a full manifesto.

Go nuts. Have fun.

------------

On Speaker Points and Speed:

Speaker points have always seemed to me to be incredibly subjective so I will probably be relatively subjective with them as well. I give points more often to debaters who show that they actually understand the arguments they are making through: on-the-fly analysis, cutting cross-examination, and adaptation of their own case to generate offense against their opponent. I also, shockingly, give points for being a good orator: clear tags, changes in speaking pace and intonation, emphasizing the big picture without succumbing to the tendency to think that louder = more important.

Spreading is, in my opinion, kind of dumb, and antithetical to the things I tend to award speaker-points for. It removes the need for the debaters to stand up and speak in the first place when I could (and indeed will probably have to) just read your doc instead.

Spreading is not a reason to vote anyone down on face certainly, but I didn’t particularly see a need for going past the speed an average person could comprehend while I was debating even if my opponent was going at top speed. I will be more impressed with you if you go efficiently down the flow rather than quickly (though of course a quick 1AR is implicit to the event at this point). Basically 99% of the time you can spread in front of me with no impact on my decision, but don't be surprised if it's a low point win if your opponent is keeping up with you in spite of not spreading, or if your opponent compellingly argues theory as to why spreading is a voting issue make sure you respond or you could end up in that 1% of times.

Be nice, roadmap clearly, have good presence, breathe. You’ll be on the way to high speaks for sure :)