Matt Harkins

If you have any questions or want to add me to an email chain, I'm at mpharks@gmail.com. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to learn from you.

I have been coaching at the Naval Academy since October 2016, and before that, I coached Cathedral Prep from 2014-2018. I debated on the national circuit in high school and qualified to the TOC twice, but I didn’t debate in college.

Most of my research and coaching is geared toward the K, but I feel comfortable evaluating a da/cp or da/case debate. I often think that the K is the best way to exploit the weaknesses of the affs that I hear, but that doesn't mean you have to take this route.

When debating in front of me, I'd highly recommend developing the implications to your arguments as soon in the debate as possible. In close debates between technically proficient teams, this is especially important. I appreciate it when a debater is creative and tries to relate to me rather than debating like a computer and into their computer.

Virtual Debate
I'd like to make things as easy as possible for you, and you're welcome to set up your speaking/video/microphone situation in whatever way makes you most comfortable.

On my end, I'm still learning how to adapt to zoom debates. There seems to be a lower ceiling on arguments I can process through zoom. This is especially the case on theory debates. If you could help me out by slowing things down, I'd appreciate it.

Debate doesn't translate directly from in-person to zoom. There are some limits that we haven't yet come to terms with, but there are also some possibilities (screen sharing comes to mind) that could be interesting, and you're welcome to experiment with that in front of me.

2021 College Topic
There's an important distinction between labor antitrust and consumer antitrust. In labor antitrust, independent contractors and labor unions are considered the businesses with whom the government is interested in limiting anticompetitive business practices. From the most straightforward reading of the topic, aff ground doesn't seem to allow for much labor antitrust. This would have been a significant consideration in at least half of the debates that I have judged so far.

Because of my academic and professional background, I've thought a lot about labor antitrust, monopolies, market power, and the suitability of the law as a remedy to these issues. To disclose a personal bias: I think that there are significant limits on the capacity of antitrust. That's not to say that I don't think there are many instances in which changes to antitrust law would be a good idea. Nor do I think that there aren't radical possibilities in antitrust. But its limits have become relevant and convincing in kritik debates in which the aff takes for granted the fundamental radicality of their proposal. I think this topic would be worthwhile if the debate community reckoned with those limits. In other words, Robert Bork was a real-life sicko, but so are most people, albeit in less apparent ways, who think that Amazon would stop being a problem if a judge told them to knock it off.

T
- I'm not in touch with community consensus so you might be able to use that to your advantage.
- I really enjoy a good T debate and don't have any strong inclinations toward fairness or education as the ultimate standard.
- I like definitions that define a word as close in a contexts as possible to the other words of the resolution
- I'm often disappointed by T evidence quality. For this reason, source/Expertise/qualifications debates tend to be pretty important. Just because a judge wrote it in a decision doesn't make it a relevant expert definition. Just because the usfg is defined in a certain way in the Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act of 1997, doesn't mean it's the best way to understand usfg for debate.
- Debating in the Pennsylvania has given me a comprehensive understanding of inherency as a procedural argument if you want to go there.

"T" (Framework)
- In the last dozen or so framework rounds that I've judged, the neg has won or lost based on whether they had a compelling claim to significant offense.
- It's frustrating to judge a framework debate wherein framework is deployed as a replacement for debating the case. I get that this is tied in some way to the "ground" and "unpredictability" aspects of the arguments you're advancing, but a failure to contend with fundamental questions posed by the aff can come across more as a sin of the neg.
- For me, framework is most useful as a neg strategy in debates where affs are needlessly obscure or cynical.

Disads
- I evaluate the link first, and I think it's a yes/no question which controls the direction of uniqueness.
- Most of the best answers to politics disads I've seen aren't necessarily carded answers to the U/L/IL/I parts of a disad, but arguments about the nonsensical nature of certain parts of the politics disad as applied to the aff.
- Although I don't cut politics files, I'm extremely aware of what's going on and familiar with who's writing what about Congress and the White House.
- I really like impact turn debates.
- Except in cases where something sophisticated is going on, it's usually a waste of time to read evidence that "warming isn't real" or "warming isn't a pressing issue." Go after the internal link, go after solvency, turn the impact, solve the impact. It's hard to convince me that warming isn't an immediate, urgent, and moral concern, but I'm skeptical that the only thing we need to do is develop the right tech or enter certain climate talks with sufficient leverage.

Counterplans
- I won't kick the counterplan for the negative unless the negative persuades me to do otherwise.
- There's a fine line between creative, technical counterplans and a contrived trick. Avoid the contrived tricks. I enjoy a creative and technical counterplan, but these aren't the kinds of arguments I spend a lot of time thinking about, so you'll do well to simplify your explanation of it as much as possible.

Kritiks
- I’m most familiar with psychoanalysis and Marxism (including left criticism of Marxism, Marxist criticisms of leftism, and Marxist critiques of other Marxisms).
- I spend a lot of time thinking about labor because of my day job.
- I first look at role of the ballot/role of the judge arguments when I'm rendering a decision, so these arguments tend to have a strong effect on the outcome of a debate.
- The perm, which is tied in important ways to the role of the ballot, tends to be the aff's most strategic line of pursuit.
- I'm willing to stop the debate and give someone a loss for using flagrantly inappropriate language.
- I've noticed that, on very many occasions in which a K debate was underdeveloped, I have recommended the second chapter of Wretched of The Earth to both teams.

Theory
- Reject the argument is the default. Spend time on the impact level to convince me to reject the team.
- I heard recently that nobody votes on multiple conditional worlds bad anymore. I guess that means I'd be more willing to entertain this argument than the average judge.
- Against affs which don't read a typical plan text or defend the resolution, I would prefer to hear a nitty-gritty case debate rather than a framework debate. This is a strong preference.
- When debaters unsuccessfully extend framework in front of me, the unsuccess is usually a result of disorganization, a lack of adaptation of pre-written blocks to the specific aff arguments, and my inability to interpret the significance of an abstract debate concept.
- If you go for framework, make sure you clearly implicate the stakes of winning a section of the debate. What I mean by this is that you shouldn't assume we're on the same page about what it means to win, say, that there exists a topical version of the aff, or your limits disad, or the benefits of switch-side debate, or etc. Leave nothing flapping in the wind in the 2nr.

Style
- I enjoy humor a lot.
- Speeches are best when they're persuasive performances; I don't enjoy monotone spreading.
- I like when debaters make smart cross applications from a flow the other team tried to kick out of.
- If the chips are down, flip the table. If, going into the rebuttals, you know you're losing 99% of the debate, see if you can explode that 1% into a win.

respectful and articulate your arguments.

I'll be as tabula rasa as possible, but you need to explain your argument well enough for me to be able to vote for you.

In high school I typically was 2N so if it turns into a theory debate I usually tend neg, unless you prove actual abuse in the round. Even if you prove abuse by an argument need to show why I should punish the team rather than not weigh the argument.

Be quick about flashing/emailing, not that it bothers me at all technology is very very very very very very very difficult, I just don't want to be the round holding up the tournament.

I don't know what it is but don't steal prep time, I do see you typing slowly while the other team is setting up their computer to speak. Don't. I may not call you out but your speaker points will show that I saw.

Experience: 4 Years debating at Cathedral Prep

River Hill '13
Wake Forest '17 with double majors in Communication and Religion and '19 MA in Bioethics

Updated throughout before 2022 GDS:

2022-2023 Res: I haven't worked at a camp but currently work in and studied bioethics, wrote a thesis on AI in medicine and existential phenomenology, and would love to hear a debate about areas of the topic you find interesting or important. The lit bases and quandries affecting or soon to affect our lives are vaster than debate allows discussion for. If your Aff is all about NATO and cyber stuff that's cool too, educate us.

Each team gets 5 minutes of tech time to send out docs, after that I time prep.

"Invisibilizing" (the macro in verbatim for taking away all of a card but the highlighted portions) is cheating and I will end the round immediately. Its happened far too often in front of me. The same goes for any kind of speech doc shenanigans during Zoom debate.

Strategy: I'd rather hear a more in-depth and developed strategy over throwing arguments at the wall in hopes that one will stick.

Argument Preferences: Whatever you do, specific over generic strategy and engagement with the other team's arguments is great.

Case debates's obviously awesome, especially when paired with CP's with Net Benefits specific to the aff.

Creative politics DA's are cool. Generic ones without good evidence are a tough sell.

Critiques are great but work best when refuting the case. A K as one big case turn is fun.

Love judging T in policy debates.

I read and coached K Affs most of the time and voted both ways, recently (end of the 2021-2022 season) probably more so aff. In FW debates, why your form of debating (or not debating) what you say the topic is is a must. I've voted neg on FW in more technical decisions and aff on more "performance outweighs, form affects content" decisions.

Any argument on debate being bad should address what we should be doing then, or why it matters whatever I do with a ballot in front of me. If you're answering this, please justify debate at least while we're stuck here.

Paperless: Yes, I would like speech docs. I try to flow warrants of cards and read to follow your research. Read great cards and emphasize their best parts in evidence comparison to your opponents' evidence.

Speaking/Flowing: Speed is the # of arguments effectively communicated to the judge that the other team must be held accountable to answer.

Slow down for theory, and ESPECIALLY 2ac's/1ar's on the case, or any long blocks of all analytics. I flow straight down and find that when I try lining up each team's arguments it distracts me from the argument being made, so go line by line and sign post but mainly just be sure that you are making a full argument.

Overviews are great, the best ones compare a ballot for you to the ballot for the other team, and weigh the question the ballot decides between the two. Doing this through any part of the debate first before the line-by-line helps to decide what's most important, an important skill to practice.

Numbering arguments helps me follow the flow order you intended.

I try my best to flow CX. Utilize CX later in the debate and I'll connect the flows. A lot of debates are decided based on 15 seconds of a good CX.

Tech vs Truth: Communicating what, why, and how you won, whether on the flow or being "actually right" through scholarship, knowledge of the lit, the world etc. Truth can transcend tech if what, why, or how you're debating supercedes the flow. But even when one team explains well their own side of the story, if they don't answer the most crucial part of the other side then more ballots on a technical decision address the lack of a interaction on important questions.

Many rounds with panel or team disagreement comes down to disagreeing on whether tech or truth mattered more. Its round context dependent and the best debaters spend at least the bare minimum time addressing it somehow. Could be on the impact debate, the link debate, overview, wherever it matters to you.

Teams excelling at tech inevitably debate those excelling at truth, and judging comes down to arguing about prioritizing either being "actually right", versus who moved debate-arg pieces to check-mate. Argue why your style should be preferred.

Make impact calculus arguments for tech, why specific drops on the flow matter. Everyone has a different flow. Many debaters assert arguments were dropped without impacting what dropping the argument means for the ballot, or how it fits into other parts of the flow. I favor technical debating when you are super clear. If you're not communicating clearly then its hard to know how you want my flow to be.

True decisions (who knows what's True) not based on tech are difficult unless you show through amazing cards, examples, and storytelling on your idea of what's true. Any style of debate works better if you can show why you have better scholarship, and why your forms of scholarship matter. This can be for policy, critical, any which way round or between.

If something on another flow implicity answers a "dropped" argument and there's a coherent explanation of this connection, it's not dropped.

An new argument can be justified if it is explained as crucial to making the decision. These justifications can also be debated.

Offense-Defense: I will use it unless an alternate paradigm is introduced and is argued as superior. Evidence on this question would be awesome.

In a T/Theory debate, TELL ME WHAT PARADIGM TO USE. Whoever controls this generally wins.

I will vote on low-risk=no-risk. Poking holes in internal link chains is underrated.

Cheap Shots: Are not the best route to victory. I will be willing to vote for you more if you pair them with a more comprehensive strategy.

Intrinsicness: When explained criticizing opportunity cost decision-making taught by debate links, is not a cheap shot, but works best in conjunction with other arguments.

Critical Intrinsicness? K Affs critiquing opportunity cost thinking as a method or otherwise applied to Neg strategy, especially K link claims about performative or material problems of the aff, are extremely persuasive for why Affs get perms in method debates or just why the perm wins. If your K has links to scenario planning, economics, policy thinking or statecraft, etc. then your lit probably also critiques opportunity cost decisionmaking based on scarcity of choice, i.e. the Aff/Perm forecloses the Neg/Alt because of the links. If the Neg/Alt doesn't engage in some form of action, thinking, organizing, planning on what should be done that performatively or materially denies the aff as an ethical option, then how does the Neg/Alt solve the links? I've rarely seen this debated out by either side but it would go far to answer why debate has a unique role to do whatever you want it to, and why the Neg's argument is not competitive, or the meaning of mutually exclusive performances.

If the Neg wins their performance is good but doesn't win that the Aff's is bad, then that's not a method debate its a presentation of a possible method without refuting the other.

Methods: What's a methodology is a good often undebated question. I'll assume its your approach to answering a question, politics, the topic, your performance, life, debate, whatever.

Everyone has some mode of debating, justify yours. If you think having a methodological approach is bad, explain why. This is where you could get into why debate or your form of it matters.

A policy without methodological support for why its a good idea is not fully argued or researched. Policy teams justifying their method and prepared with answers to K teams' various methods can be very persuasive.

Neg teams that explain what their method is and means, impacted with how your method's differences with the aff matter or are DA's to the aff, are persuasive.

Please don't just assert that its a method debate without a warrant for what that means, who your method is for and in what context, why it is a method debate, and how that changes my paradigm for evaluating the round. Answering the perm just by saying "it's a method debate" doesn't mean anything without a reason and impact.

Topicality: Love it. I don't have a huge preference between reasonability or competing interps. Having education offense for your interpretation is a must. Limits and ground are internal links and not impacts by themselves. This debate, along with FW, is a question of competing worlds of debating the topic.

Reasonability shifts the paradigm for evaluating topicality away from competing interpretations to a "good enough" interpretation for the topic. Its a critique or impact turn to Offense-Defense T debating and the perfective push of competing interpretations aiming for the best possible (only possible) topic.

Competing interpretations should justify why we should strive for the best possible topic and how the aff is not only unreasonable but that settling for the aff's topic would be bad, or that we shouldn't settle for an unideal topic, why the topic matters at all.

Reasonability is NOT a reason that you meet their interpretation reasonably enough. This means you must have an interpretation extended in order to win with reasonability. "We reasonably meet their interpretation" is a we meet argument and confusing blended with reasonability/competing interpretations.

Theory: These debates are unnecessarily messy and should forefront key impacts instead of extending bullet point defense that generally doesn't affect the decision. Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. Conditionality is an exception, but only with specific in-round examples of how affirmative strategy was affected. More than 2 conditional worlds, the neg better have a good defense of their practice. Just 2 conditional worlds or less, the aff better have an example of in-round abuse.

If you must go for theory as a reason to reject the other team, dedicate your whole final speech to it. If not, concede the other team's "reject the argument" and show how rejecting that will set up the rest of your winning strategy. EX: reject the process cp, now the case outweighs their DA.

No, I will not kick the CP/Alt for you. Use those decision-making skills and make an actual strategic decision. The 2AR shouldn't be expected to read my mind to figure out which world they are debating. I'll assume that 1NC CX saying that "status quo is always an option" is about the neg and not me after the debate.

Counterplan Theory: I prefer anything with plan specific solvency advocates, and if the neg lacks one the aff should make a big deal of this. I'll admit I'm not the best at thinking through the minutiae of process counterplan competition and would be willing to reject the argument for sketchy CP's that compete off of arbitrary things. If you have a really interesting CP with specific solvency and competition evidence, I'll evaluate things much more in the neg's favor and expect the aff to have answers to an argument within their lit base.

FW when Aff against a K: I won't vote a team down for reading a critique. I will also probably give them access to an alternative. You're better off problematizing the alt's ability to solve because it can't change institutions, etc, while defending the justifications for the 1ac. The Neg on the FW debate should tell me what sort of debate I should prioritize.

FW against a K Aff: Both teams need arguments favoring their form of debate against the other team. Not sure how to vote without a justification of how debate should be.

A lot of debate practices are good and a lot are bad, but what does my ballot mean towards changing that? Is it better to improve the bad parts of debate and keep the good, or is debate so bad it should be abandoned? If abandoned, what do we do while here? How do we leave debate within norms of debating? How are you against or changing those norms? Is changing debate better than leaving it? How do we do either?

Interact with the other team's offense. If you ONLY read FW in your 1NC, it's most persuasive if argued as the ONLY way to clash with the 1AC. If you had other great arguments to read, let's talk about those lol. If you didn't, then practice FW. It's a waste if you read only FW to excuse never engaging other teams at all.

FW's persuasiveness increases when the other team skirts links to other 1NC positions. I've voted for FW many times, but you'd still be better off trying to think of something more creative beyond FW/CAP.

My favorite FW style is like a K about the necessity and inevitability of state and topic engagement showing how not engaging the state or topic turns their Aff AND other topic areas and you'll be much more persuasive than "but limits, judge". Tell me why we're learning about the topic at all. Limits upon an unethical and meaningless topic is a bad idea. Tell me why the topic is ethical and meaningful to learn about.

Decision Time: I will try to decide quickly not because it was a bad debate but because taking too long generally means I end up overthinking the round, as I often do. I will try to read as few pieces of evidence as possible. I expect you to articulate the warrants for cards the first time they are read so that I don't have to figure out what they say after the round.

Be funny, be nice, not over the top screaming at each other. Use analogies!

Longer (older but little has changed) philosophy:

A brief warning: I have not worked at a camp this summer, so I have little Oceans topic knowledge. If there are any intricacies of how the topic, your aff, or really anything operates that I should know in order to vote for you, please tell me. It'll show your expertise on your arguments, which will get you higher speaks, and make my decision much easier.

I do not care what arguments you make, just be passionate about them and execute them in a way that demonstrates that passion. Understand however that some arguments are of higher quality than others. While I will not be unwilling to hear a throwdown on the "The" PIC, my value to life may decrease because of it.

One caveat to the first statement about "run what you want". If you make an argument that is morally repugnant, I will feel no remorse when voting against you. Impact turns such as Racism Good, Sexism Good, Homophobia Good, Transphobia Good etc. are unjustifiable and I would like to think that the debate community is above that in terms of promoting meaningful education and argumentative strategy. If this is just your thing, you are always welcome to strike me. I'm sure we'd both be happier that way.

Also, some people may consider me a "point fairy." Just throwing that out there.


Since I have little preference about what specific arguments you do read, here are some meta issues that I think will better describe how I evaluate debates:

I will try my best to stick to the flow and not to intervene in my decision, HOWEVER no judge is perfectly objective. Judges are humans and not flow-bots. There are certain aspects of debate, argumentation, and communication that cannot be understood by staring at long pieces of paper with various colors of scribbles scrawled upon them. This means persuasion is not solely based on logic, but also emotional connection and personal credibility communicated to the judge. Odds are that if you combine these three factors, you will receive substantially higher speaker points and, if the stars align, you might just win.

Cross-X is very important and I try to flow it. Take time to think this through just as you would any other speech. Good cross-x's that get utilized in later speeches will earn you higher speaker points.

An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Without one of these, you do not have an argument.
Similarly, fewer arguments with more warranted and impacted analysis is always superior to more arguments with fewer warranted and impacted analysis.

Speed is the number of arguments effectively communicated to the judge that the other team must be held accountable to answer. This means I need to have your argument understood and somehow, somewhere written down on my flow AND this argument must be developed in a way that it holds enough importance that the other team has to answer it. I would rather you be clear and flowable than blazing "fast" and impossible to understand.
On a related note, I like to flow the warrants of cards. If you are unclear when reading evidence, it will decrease the persuasiveness of your argument because I will not have a full understanding of what your card actually says.
Unlike many other judges, I will not yell "clear" if I cannot understand you. If you are unflowable, that is not my problem, it's yours. Pick up on visual cues such as my facial expressions or inability to write things down and you can probably tell just how unflowable you are. Please, just be clear and we will never run into problems. If this requires you to slow down and read fewer cards than you would have otherwise, trust me it's probably worth it.

Quality over quantity. Always. I cannot stress this enough. I'd much rather you have a well developed, specific neg strategy with fewer, longer, more warranted cards that apply directly to the affirmative then a 1NC that throws arguments at the wall in hopes that something sticks. The same applies for 1AC's. A well developed advantage with fewer impacts that have many warrants is preferable to one shoddy internal link and solvency claim followed by endless number of impact cards.
Innovation is awesome and will be greatly rewarded. Just know that your new argument should still make sense. Some arguments aren't run for a reason.

Tech vs truth is entirely situational. If an argument is "conceded", it better have a claim, warrant, and impact in order to then count as "true" within the confines of the debate. If something elsewhere on other flows implicitly answers the argument and the other team provides a coherent explanation of this connection, the argument is not "conceded." If an argument is conceded, it does not automatically win the debate. It needs further explanation about what that concession means in relation to the other arguments in the debate.

The debaters who often win and receive the highest speaker points are those who make meta-level "framing issue" arguments, such as reasons to prefer only certain kinds of evidence, impacts, responses etc. If there is something that you think the other team has no game on, please tell me what that is, why it matters, and how it implicates how I evaluate everything else.

In this same vein, it is VERY, VERY, VERY important to tell me how to evaluate certain arguments, mainly permutations and framework arguments, often beyond the simple "perm's are tests of competition" or "we should weigh our plan." Tell me what it means for you to win the perm or framework, how they interact with other arguments on the flow. If the aff wins the perm, but the neg wins their framework, what does that mean? Impact these important portions of the flow so I know how arguments work together on the flow.

Evidence makes arguments, but so should debaters. Just because you have a card on something does not mean you will win. Sensible analytic arguments will be valued as highly as evidence, and definitely higher than shoddy evidence.

Offense-Defense is a useful heuristic for evaluating risk. However, I do think that there is such thing as terminal defense. It is still safer to extend offense.
PLEASE tell me whether or not I should use an offense-defense paradigm, and give reasons for this too. This is especially important in topicality and theory debates when it can be harder to win substantive offense.

Impact calculus is extremely important. The triumvirate of Magnitude, Timeframe, and Probability are overrated though. Certainly make these arguments, but explain them and why they are important/more important than the other team's impact. Impact calculus should tell a story. I want to know what the world, or lack thereof, will look like post-ballot. This is ESPECIALLY important in critique debates where the impacts can be more ethereal.

Theory debates can get messy, so clean them up and you'll probably win. If you clean up the flow and make larger, conceptual framing arguments as opposed to bullet point extensions of your theory block, you will be rewarded with good speaks and maybe even a ballot.
Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument and not the team. If you do wish to go for theory in the 2AR, you will win if you overcome this threshold.

The only strong theory bias I hold is against "judge kick." I do not think that the 2NR can go for both the CP/Alt AND the status quo, meaning that during the decision the judge should be able to kick the advocacy and vote for the status quo. The 2NR is very hard, but the 2AR should not be expected to read the judge's mind and debate in both the world where the neg's advocacy is kicked and where it's not. 2N's should make strategic choices by actually making a choice of what you want to go for. If you defend judge kick in the 2NR, I will be very unhappy and will probably not end up kicking the advocacy (unless the 2AR really drops the ball on this theory question AND there's no other way to resolve the debate).

If in cross-x the neg says "status quo is always an option", I assume that means that it's always an option for the neg and that they can kick the advocacy and go for the status quo and NOT that I can judge kick. To counter this form of negative shadiness, 1NC CX should always include questions of the status of advocacies AND whether the judge can kick the advocacy after the debate. It takes 10 seconds tops and is well worth your time.
If the 1NC does defend "judge kick", please make this into a separate theory argument in the 2AC. It's not a round winner, but bringing it up will hopefully deter this practice in some way.

I love debate, but understand it has LOTS of problems and is in serious need of improvement. However, it is still the most rewarding activity I have ever had the privilege of participating in.

If your argument claims that debates in the status quo are exclusionary/oppressive/pure-evil, then I am perfectly willing to vote for you if you provide an alternate method capable of changing debate for the better. We are about to be in a debate, after-all.

This can even include "burn it down" style arguments, but I want to know what myself as a judge can do while in debate about debate. This does not necessarily have to be framed in terms of a typical critique "alternative", but I would just like to know what ideal debates would look like after I sign my ballot.

Having said that, I think all forms debate can be highly educational. Whether one likes to call arguments performative, non-traditional, or anything else, it's all still arguments.

Framework arguments have varying levels of persuasiveness against these forms of debate. I find framework most persuasive when you paint a picture of what their world of debate looks like for both aff and neg teams, for debate research, for judges, for the community overall etc. and not simply by rehashing limits and ground arguments.

Topical versions of the aff need fleshing out and I hold a higher standard for explanation on how they actually address not just the advantage of the aff but also their solvency approach as well. Topical versions of the aff supported by evidence are much more persuasive. Think of them as counterplans with FW being the net benefit.

The same goes for other forms of topicality arguments. Limits and ground are internal links and not impacts by themselves. Debate about what debate should/shouldn't be like.

Conversely, teams having framework run against them need a defense of their argument's form, content (explanation for whether there is even a difference between those things), and a reason why their version of debate is superior to the other team's.

I've rethought my policy on paperless prep time. Prep time stops when you save the speech and the other team has access to it, whether this means you hand it to them on a flashdrive or you sent it to them through an email chain. Please just be quick about it or be a more efficient prepper.

Debate is built on trust. Cheating or unethical behavior will not be tolerated. If a team is proven to have debated unethically, that team will receive extremely low speaker points and will lose the round. However, if the team accusing the other fails to prove that any unethical behavior occurred, that team will receive the same punishment. This is to prevent off-the-cuff accusations of cheating that delegitimize actual, warranted charges.
Another important thing to note here: these accusations are not to be evaluated with an "offense-defense" paradigm. There can be no grey area. You must prove that the other team performed unethically using substantive evidence. The best example of this is a recording of the debate along with a copy of the speech.


If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Also, have fun!! Debate is competitive, but don't let that get in the way of your enjoyment of the whole process =]

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1999. I competed in high school from 2000-2002. I also taught at a debate camp for BUDL in 2006.

Since 2002, I have judged at local and national high school debate tournaments. I also judge at various elementary and middle school league tournaments.

I have been described as a liberal judge. I like all of the argument types. I encourage every student to run their arguments in a well-structured and organized fashion. I can handle speed and spreading.

I do provide my email address on every ballot. It is listed below for your convenience. My ballots are usually detailed based on the flow of the round. I flow (take notes) nearly the entire round. I believe that we can all stand to learn from one another. I am also an advocate of research. Analytical arguments are good too. I prefer clash, refutation, and impact calculus during the debate round.

I can be reached via email at Lisadebate02@gmail.com.

9/20/2019

I have experience debating competitively in high school and college from 2008-2015. I debated at Baltimore City College and Harvard.

I don't prefer listening to certain arguments over others.

I like debates where debaters successfully clash on crucial, core issues in the debate.

I see my role as a judge to decide on a winner and loser of the debate, and to justify to the debaters, especially the losing team, the reasons for my decision.

I do not seek to read evidence after debates, and will usually only read evidence to resolve crucial questions that are not resolved by the debaters.

Add me to the chain - OliverLanier@gmail.com.

Coaching history:

Oakton High School 2017-2018

Gilman School - 2019-Present

George Mason University - 2018-2020

I decided to add this to the top of my paradigm as it impacts my decision making a lot: you should spend more time actually making arguments. This is distinct from simply slowing down, which shouldn’t be necessary if you commit to your chosen arguments to a greater degree. II think the fastest paced and most technical debates require judges that can both flow at an extremely fast pace (not a bad thing) and have such a great amount of argument-specific/topic knowledge that they’re able to take “small” arguments and make them “big” ones based on their ability to extrapolate from what has been said. While this is impressive, I don’t think it’s a necessarily productive standard to hold judges to, and I believe that it is an expectation that is often fulfilled at the expense of valuable clash. Personally, I can guarantee you that what I spend my time reading and writing about has nothing to do with what you’re saying in a given debate, and the way I’m used to thinking outside of debate looks very different from what debate requires. Don’t assume I am familiar with with your argument(s). Don’t assume I’m going to read a card you’ve read and reconstitute your 1AR sentence/little word cluster. I will absolutely tell you after a debate that I missed an argument if it was underdeveloped, in earnest, and not feel bad about it. I’m sure you can avoid this from happening—I believe in you.

Now I'm just going to give my opinions on things that I always scroll down to when reading people's paradigms:

Topicality: It's in the neg's interest to explain clearly why the dynamics of the topic mean I should err neg on limits, and/or why debatability outweighs aff offense. Absent that kind of common-sense impact framing deciding between a limited neg-leaning topic and a relatively unlimited aff-leaning topic is too intervention-y for my comfort. I see reasonability as a schema through which to evaluate competing interpretations, not an exclusive paradigm. I can be convinced to apply reasonability in an alternative fashion, but I am unconvinced by "arguments" that use reasonability as a stand-in for impact comparison (do not repeat that you are reasonable without explanation in the hopes that my gut-approach to the topic includes your aff). These are debates that I would prefer be had at slower speeds more conducive to me being able to flow complete arguments instead of excessively shallow shorthand (possibly to your detriment).

Theory: I'm open to anything but my threshold for voting aff on delay cps bad is quite different from my threshold for voting aff on vague alternatives bad. If you're negative and reading something that is obviously pushing it it would be helpful for you to have arguments as to why reading your horribly unfair argument is distinct from every other time said horribly unfair argument has been read or is warranted by the topic/specific affirmative. See above note about speed.

Condo: I don't care but see above.

DAs: I believe there can be zero risk of one. Having a diversity of arguments does not have to and shouldn't trade off with smart framing arguments. Spending time winning a single damning argument with certainty is more helpful to me than reading a block your 1A wrote that extends every piece of UQ/Link/Impact ev in the debate. "Link determines direction of uniqueness" is generally more intuitive to me than the inverse.

Ks: If you read it one off I understand if your speeches don't reflect standard practice procedural organization and think it's in your interest to mix things up. I'll flow straight down. If you're affirmative in one of these debates it's your job to use that to your advantage and reconstruct things for me.

Framework: I often vote for non-topical affirmatives in part because framework debates are unnecessarily complicated. Simplifying things will substantially increase your chances of winning a ballot. For the neg this means picking an impact in the 2NR; fairness is one and is often (in my opinion) a better 2NR choice than decision-making/delib (explanation of which tends to be very nebulous and vulnerable to aff link/impact turns). If you go for an education impact, explain why your interp/model solves it or just explain why the aff precludes it. It doesn't take much to convince me that you should get topic education as an impact turn against affs that are explicitly anti-topical, but outside of that context this will require work for me. I say that fairness is often a better option because I generally believe that fairness is required for debate to have internal consistency/meaning, and teams whose strategy on T line up with that will put themselves in a good position in debates that I am judging. As explained above, I am partial to fairness/competitive equity impacts and so it is in the aff's interest to explain why they produce/justify reasonably fair debates/affirmatives OR spend a lot of time impact turning fairness instead of repeating that it's infinitely regressive/doesn't have a brightline/is just an internal link to education/shadow extending another sentence-long 2AC arg. Please don’t drop 100 DAs to framework in the 2AC which are largely the same few arguments with some flashy titles. This having been said, if you have a few core impact turns that you can tease out a lot of vertical depth from/craft an ultimate strategy around, using consistent language to refer to them distinctly is good.

These statements represent my feelings and quite likely my proclivities in judging; they do not, however, represent any hardline stance that I will take regardless of the context supplied by a debate. I flow a lot and will use it more than anything else to make a decision if I am judging you.

- Austin xoxo

I am looking for topicality does the thesis of the affirmative really meet the standards of debate. I also look and see what evidence is being used and if it used effectively and not just some random piece of evidence that is biased. You see their is the subjective and objective facts in each debate. I also look at see when you quote evidence is up to date and plausible to support your thesis. I expect language to be respectful to each other if you are aff or neg. I do not like to use profanity in this educational setting. Do you use your time wisely? Does someone leave two or three minutes left in a rebuttal if so why? Doing crossfire do you answer questions properly or ask probing questions to help you win the debate. I value good speakers and good flow.

It's cool frfr. I'll judge your round. Don't be a racist or w/e and make your arguments well.

-See Devon Schley's Paradigm, we're basically the same person but I like Afropess less-