Debated: Norman High School (2005- 2009), University of Oklahoma (2009-2014)
Coached: University of Texas at San Antonio (2014-2015), Caddo Magnet High School (2014-2015), Baylor University (2015-2017), University of Iowa (2017-2022), Assistant Director of James Madison University 2022-2023

Currently: Assistant Director of Debate at Baylor University, Assistant coach at Greenhill High School

email: kristiana.baez@gmail.com

Updates- Feb 2023

Think of my paradigm as a set of suggestions for packaging or a request for extra explanation on certain arguments.

Despite the trend of judges unabashedly declaring themselves bad for certain arguments or predetermining the absolute win condition for arguments, I depart from this and will evaluate the debate in front of me.

*Judge instruction, judge instruction, judge instruction!*

Sometimes when we are deep in a literature base, we auto apply a certain lens to view the debate, but that lens is not automatic for the judge. Don’t assume that I will fill things in for you or presume that I automatically default to a certain impact framing, do that work!

*Argument framing is your friend.*

“If I win this, then this.”

"Even if we lose ontology, here is why we can still win.” This is important for both debating the K and going for the K.

Zoom debate things:

Don’t start until you see my face, I will always have my camera on when you’re speaking!

Clarity over speed, please- listening to debates over zoom is difficult, start out more slowly and then pick up pace, but don’t sacrifice clarify for speed.

Ethics violations-Calling an ethics violation is a flag on the play and the debate stops. Please, please do not call an ethics violation unless you want to stop the debate.

---

Top level thoughts: This is your debate, so above all-- do what you do, but do it well!
My debate career was a whileee ago. I primarily read Ks, but I have also done strictly policy debate in my career, so I have been exposed to a wide variety of arguments. I like to think that I am a favorable judge for Ks or FW. I have coached all types of arguments and am happy to judge them.

I judge the debate in front of me and avoid judge intervention as much as possible. In this sense, I am more guided by tech because I don't think you can determine the truth of any debate within the time constraints. HOWEVER, I think you can use the truth to make more persuasive arguments- for example, you can have one really good argument supported by evidence that you're making compelling bc of its truthiness that could be more convincing or compelling than 3 cards that are meh.

FW/T

I judge a good number of T v. K aff debates and am comfortable doing so.

Sometimes these debates are overly scripted and people just blow through their blocks at top speed, so I think it's important to take moments to provide moments of emphasis and major framing arguments. Do not go for everything in the 2NR, there is not enough time to fully develop your argument and answer theirs. Clearly identify what impact you are going for.

Internal link turns by the negative help to mitigate the impact turn arguments. Example- debating about AI is key to create AI that does not re-create racial bias. TVA can help here as well!

The definitions components of these debates are underutilized- for example, if the aff has a counter interp of nuclear forces or disarm, have that debate. Why is their interp bad and exacerbate the limits or ground issues? I feel like this this gives you stronger inroads to your impact arguments and provides defense to the aff's impact turns.

K aff's- It is way less compelling to go for impact turns without going for the aff and how they resolve the impact turns. You cannot just win that framework is bad. It is more strategic for the aff to defend a particular model of debate, not just a K of current debate.

Kritiks:

Updated- It’s important to find balance between theoretical explanations, debate-ification of arguments, and judge instruction. More specifically- if you have a complex theory that you need to win to win the debate, you HAVE to spend time here. Err towards more simple explanation as opposed to overly convoluted.

Think about word efficiency and judge instruction for those theoretical arguments.

Although, I am familiar with some kritiks, I do not pretend to be an expert on all. That being said, I think that case specific links are the best. Generic links are not as compelling especially if you are flagging certain cards for me to call for at the end of the round. It seems that many times debaters don't take the time to really explain what the alternative is like, whether it solves part of the aff, is purely rejection, etc. If for some reason the alternative isn't extended or explained in the 2nr, I won't just apply it as a case turn for you. An impact level debate is also still important even if the K excludes the evaluation of specific impacts. It is really helpful to articulate how the K turns the case as well. On a framing level, do not just assume that I will believe that the truth claims of the affirmative are false, there needs to be in-depth analysis for why I should dismiss parts of the aff preferably with evidence to back it up.
The 2NR should CLEARLY identify if they are going for the alternative. If you are not, you need to be explicit about why you don't need the alt to win the debate. This means clear framework and impact framing arguments + turns case arguments. You need to explain why the links are sufficient turns case arguments for me to vote negative on presumption.

CPs- I really like counterplans especially if they are specific to the aff, which shows that you have done your research. Although PIKs are annoying to deal with if you are aff, I enjoy a witty PIK. However, make it clear that it is a PIK and explain why it solves the aff better or sufficiently. Explain sufficiency framing in the context of the debate you're having, don't just blurt out "view the cp through the lens of sufficiency"--that's not a complete argument.

Generic cps with generic solvency cards aren't really going to do it for me. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

DAs- I find it pretty easy to follow DAs. However, if you go for it I am most likely going to be reading ev after the round, so it better be good. If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc.

Make the story of the DA AND your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar.

Theory- I generally err neg on theory unless there is a really good debate over it. Your generic blocks aren't going to be very compelling. If you articulate why condo causes a double turn, etc. specific to the round is a better way to go with it. I think that arguments such as vague alternatives especially when an alternative morphs during the round are good. However, minor theory concerns such as multiple perms bad aren't as legitimate in my opinion.

Other notes: If you are unclear, I can't flow you and I don't get the evidence as you read it, so clarity over speed is always preferable.
Don't be rude, your points will suffer. There is a difference between being aggressive and being a jerk.
Impact calc please, don't make me call for everyones impacts and force me to evaluate it myself. I don't want to do the work for you.
The last two rebuttals should be writing my ballot, tell me how I vote and why. Don't get too bogged down to give a big picture evaluation.

Accomplish something in your cross-x time and use the answers you get in cx and incorporate them into your speeches. Cx is wasted if you pick apart the DA but don't talk about it in your speech.

General debate:

- I value respect of each other above all else. Keep it fun, no need to get *too* saucy with one another. There's a difference between aggressiveness and meanness.

- It's fine to keep your own time; I can keep track of prep time if you need me to (assume I am anyway).

- No spreading. I'm a flow judge. If I can't keep up with you, I can't flow. If I can't flow your arguments, I can't weigh them.

- I appreciate nuance if it makes sense. Don't try to throw nuanced arguments at me just for the sake of it. Show me how it works in the round.

- Evidence - I like it. I like substantiated evidence. Don't card dump on me, but provide me with adequate proof of your claims. I don't care how many sources you were able to find. I care about quality and relevance of those sources.

- Signposting is much appreciated. :) (goes back to that whole flow judge thing)

- Be confident. I have a speech/drama background as well so I value a solid public speaker who carries themself well. Confidence goes a long way.

PF:

- I enjoy a framework debate, but if you aren't going to provide framework - (a) be willing to weigh your side to your opponents' or (b) provide enough of an impact calculus to convince me you have the stronger case without framework.

- Pretend I don't know anything about your topic. Prove to me you do. That's kind of the fun part about public forum. It's supposed to be geared toward a "general audience."

LD:

- I'm pretty simple when it comes to LD - convince me your value/criterion are superior. Please link your arguments to your value, and remind me often. If you can't convince me there's a link, there's no case.

Overall just have fun with it. At the end of the day that's what debate is supposed to be. You'll find I'm pretty chill so just keep it clean, convince me you've got the better arguments, and we'll have a good time.

*Updated for 2024*
Bryan Gaston
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598
bgaston@heritagehall.com

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I have decided to try and give you as much information about my tendencies to assist with MPJ and adaptation.

**NEW NOTE, I may be old but I'm 100% right on this trend: Under-highlighting of evidence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL, some teams are reading cards with such few things highlighted it is amazing they actually got away with claiming the evidence as tagged. When I evaluate evidence, I will ONLY EVALUATE the words in that evidence that were read in the round. If you didn't read it in a speech I will not read the unhighlighted sections and give you the full weight of the evidence--you get credit for what you actually say in the speech, and what you actually read in the round. Debaters, highlight better. When you see garbage highlighting point it out, and make an argument about it---if the highlighting is really bad I will likely agree and won't give the card much credit. This does not mean you can't have good, efficient highlighting, but you must have a claim, data, and warrant(s) on each card.**

Quick Version:

1. Debate is a competitive game.

2. I will vote on framework and topicality-Affs should be topical. But, you can still beat framework with good offense or a crafty counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs --good (better to have a solvency advocate than not), process CPs a bit different. It is a very debatable thing for me but topic-specific justifications go a long way with me.

6. K's that link to the Aff plan/advocacy/advantages/reps are good.

7. I will not decide the round over something X team did in another round, at another tournament, or a team's judge prefs.

8. Email Chain access please: bgaston@heritagehall.com

9. The debate should be a fun and competitive activity, be kind to each other and try your best.

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategy, always choose the more specific strategy if you are equally capable of executing both strategies. But I get it, sometimes you have to run a process CP or a more generic K.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's I am typically brief, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. I am a high school teacher and coach, who is responsible for high school-age students. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room I think that is inappropriate.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc.

"Clipping" in debate: Clipping in the debate is a serious issue and one of the things I will be doing to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking and while flowing I read along to check from time to time.

CX: This is the only time you have “face time” with the judge. Please look at the judge not at each other. Your speaker points will be rewarded for a great CX and lowered for a bad one. Be smart in CX, assertive, but not rude.

Speaker Point Scale updated: Speed is fine, and clarity is important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” The average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), and Excellent 29-29.9. Can I get a perfect 30? I have given 3 in 20 years if HS judging they all went on to win the NDT in college. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to opponents or your partner during a round.

Long Version...

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic. If there is a topical version of the Aff I tend to think that takes away most of the Aff's offense in many of these T/FW debates vs no plan Affs--unless the Aff can explain why there is no topical version and they still need to speak about "X" on the Aff or why their offense on T still applies.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. I tend to think politics DA's are core negative ground--so it is hard for me to be convinced I should reject the politics DA because debating about it is bad for debate. My take: I often think the internal link chains of DA's are not challenged enough by the Aff, many Aff teams just spot the Neg the internal links---It's one of the worst effects of the prevalence of offense/defense paradigm judging over the past years...and it's normally one of the weaker parts of the DA.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate. My Take: I do however think that the negative should have a solvency advocate or some basis in the literature for the counterplan. If you want to run a CP to solve terrorism you need at least some evidence supporting your mechanism. My default is that I reject the CP, not the team on Aff CP theory wins.

Case debates: I like it. Negative teams typically underutilize this. I believe well planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turns can go a long way in a round.

Critiques: I like them. In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better.

Big impact turn debates: I like them. Want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs Growth Good, method vs method, it's all good.

Topicality/FW: I tend to think competing interpretations are good unless told otherwise...see the Aff section above for more related to T.

Theory: Theory sets up the rules for the debate game. I tend to evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to each teams theory impacts and impact defense. The interpretation debate is very important to evaluating theory for me. For a team to drop the round on theory you must impact this debate well and have clear answers to the other side's defense.

Impact framing-- it's pretty important, especially in a round where you have a soft-left Aff with a big framing page vs a typical neg util based framing strat.

Have fun debating!

Quick Overview

I will vote on about anything. Debate how you do best! Btw, automatic 30 speaks if you run Anthro. Btw, will probably vote you down(?) if you run any sort of death good stuff.

Disadvantages

I think Disads are great. Specific links are preferred but I'll let generic ones slide as long as you explain to me how the aff comes within link ground. PLEASE HAVE AN INTERNAL LINK CHAIN.

Counterplans

I love case-specific counterplans! Please have a solvency advocate. Net Benefit(s) to the CP are preferred.

PICs: I'm not a fan of PICs but I will totally vote for them if either team is winning it.

Kritiks

Again, specific links are preferred. Please explain your alt in the round.

K Affs: The aff should be specific and relevant to the topic and have a viable alternative/solvency mechanism. Neg: I'll totally vote on T/FW if you run it and win it.

Literature: If you don't know if I'm familiar with the lit you'll be running, just ask me.

Topicality

I love topicality. Voting issues should impacted out and applicable to the debate. Also, I DO like RVI's and I WILL vote on them as long as you prove actual abuse and impact it in round.

Case

Love it!

Framework/Framing

Tell me why one is a better/worse model for debate and why I should prefer it in round.

Extra/Misc. Stuff

Speed - I'm cool with it. Just be clear and slower on your tags or analysis. I'll tell you to clear if needed. For online debates, probably slow down a little.

Cross-Ex - I'm fine with open or closed, as long as both teams agree. If open, both partners should participate at some point in the debate. DON'T be rude in cross-ex.

Time - Please try and time yourselves. Ask me ahead of speech time if you can time yourself or if you forgot how much prep you have.

Prep time - I don't normally count flashing as prep unless it just gets stupidly long. Don't ghost prep.

Speaker Points - I will CRUSH your speaker points and give you a hella quick 25 if you're rude to your opponent, partner, or me. I will CRUSH your speaker points if you are caught card-clipping, and probably get you DQ'd too lol.

Pronouns - He/him. If any debater in the round has preferred pronouns, please make that clear to me and every competitor in the room.

"ism" - I DO NOT want to see any examples of racism/sexism/classism/etc. in round, it is not cool at all. However, don't call somebody out for any "ism" if it's not true, that's inversely rude.

Evidence - If I need to see a piece of evidence for my clarity, or because it was heavily contested in round, I'll ask for it

RFD - I might take a minute or two to write out my RFD, just be patient, I don't care if y'all chat. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about my RFD.

Email Chain - If you are using the chain, I'd like to be included @ damian.g.hernandez02@gmail.com

If you have any other questions, ask me before round, I'll answer!

Finally, it's debate, you joined for a reason. Have fun and learn something!

Please put me on the email chain: sarammoore637@gmail.com

Short Version

I primarily did local/traditional LD debate in Oklahoma. I probably cannot follow your fast spreading or jargon. I’d prefer to judge debates where I don’t have to intervene or guess at what you were trying to say. Spell things out for me, weigh things for me, warrant your arguments. I have not judged this topic. The more you can explain things without jargon, the better.

Pref shortcut:

1/2 - I am a traditional debater or can adapt

3 - I’d rather you than a parent I guess?

4 - I do not know how to debate without spreading

5 - I primarily rely on big words and tricks to win

General

1. I did LD for Norman High School in Oklahoma from 2015-2019. I am on a gap year, starting at Harvard next year. In high school, I qualified for nationals twice, but I never attended. I basically only competed on the local circuit, which means I pretty much only encountered lay debate. I went to VBI twice so I was briefly exposed to more progressive debate, but that was 2 and half years ago.

2. My lack of national circuit experience does not necessarily mean you shouldn't read progressive arguments if that's what you want to do. I am not biased against them (at least not consciously), but, whatever you read, just make sure you explain it really thoroughly and warrant it.

3. For the sake of everyone involved, be respectful. I am not impressed by rudeness. You can be blunt or whatever, say what you want, but, in personal interactions with me and your opponent, be kind. Debate is inherently a confrontational activity and creates a lot of toxicity and exclusion so if you can make it less so, I will be very happy. If you’re reading something that necessitates being rude, make sure that is explained and probably ask if that’s alright first.

4. Blippy arguments are risky not just because they kinda suck, but also because I probably won’t catch them.

5. No flex prep or prep before cx

Speed

Ok so, I don’t know the WPM that will kill me, but I listen to my podcasts at 2 times speed so whatever speed that is is probably around my comfort level. This is the only metric I can provide as I am, once again, from Oklahoma and am very detached from even that circuit.

For my sake and yours, please speak clearly. I will say clear 3 times and then give up.

Theory

Umm...as I type this I am struggling to remember what parts of a shell are..so let that serve as a warning.

I think that means I won’t feel very comfortable voting on what feels frivolous theory because I am not incredibly confident in my ability to evaluate it on a technical level. An example would be if you read a shell because your opponent closed the door, restricted the airflow throughout the room, reduced your ability to inhale in enough air, and thus, made it harder to for you spread, I would laugh and commend you for your effort, but probably not vote on it if I could avoid it.

That being said, I will vote on something that is a legitimate problem, but I don't know what is actually 'abusive' so you will have to clearly spell it out for me as to why the round was so skewed that I have to vote on theory.

Full-disclosure: I am probably biased against disclosure theory because that is not a norm on the OK local circuit, but don’t let that stop you if you feel like reading it. I will vote on it if I understand.

I will vote on RVIs if i can figure out how to?

Ks

Careful here. I have little experience, but also like in general if you explain stuff slowly...go ahead.

Phil

If you are reading something complicated, I commend you and I hope you are good at explaining it, not because I am on the lookout for inaccuracies or incorrect explanations, but because unless I understand, I won’t feel comfortable voting on it.

I don’t read philosophy in my free time. You could mischaracterize Hobbes as Rawls and I would not care unless your opponent pointed it out and explained why I should.

I have biases because they, yanno, allow me to live life normally and feel grounded in reality. For example, I kinda just assume happiness and pleasure matters in some capacity. Keep that in mind when you are reading something that runs counter to that, you might need to explain yourself more for me to shake those off and get what your argument.

CPs

Honestly go off, read PICs or PIKs, live your life. Explain it though. Understand, I might be sympathetic to perms if I can remember what those are.

Speaks

25-26: You said something offensive. I will definitely note whatever caused this on the ballot and in the RFD.

27-27.5: Meh. I said clear 3 times and you ignored it and I was

28-28.5: Solid

29: Wowza

30: Double wowza

Hi, I'm Chloë! As a brief background, I attended Norman High School and now go to Yale, where I've been involved with Urban Debate League as a coach. My primary events were LD and FX/IX. I love debate and want to make it an educational, encouraging, and fun space for everyone. This means that I have a pretty low threshold for impoliteness. You probably won't lose the debate on it, but your speaks will reflect your attitude and, unfortunately, speaks matter in debate.

I have debated both circuit and traditional. I have no genuine preference for either one and will vote for the smartest/strongest arguments. To win my ballot, you need to win on the flow. However, you will impress me if you respect the game of debate-- don't try to trick your opponent with bad, underdeveloped arguments. Also, post-round oral disclosure is a good practice. I will always disclose, and you can feel free to follow up with me with clarifying questions (within reason, but yeah).

Lastly, here are a few of my tips for Oklahoma debaters:

1. Make your tags clear. I will not extend author names if there's no argument attached to it.

2. Call out your opponent's drops. If you do not do this, I will assume that the argument will not be extended throughout the round and I will drop it from the flow. (ie, it's no longer to your advantage that an argument was missed)

3. Don't blow off the framework debate. Everyone's time is wasted if there is no clash and you continue to build up a boring framework, so make your framework work for you. This can be especially fun if you're negative.

Happy to answer more questions pre or post round. Have a good time!

Hey y'all! My name is Miranda, and I'm a practicing attorney in Mississippi. I grew up in Norman, OK, where I debated for Norman High School. I primarily did LD debate and FEX/DEX, although I dabbled (poorly) in CX and a couple acting events. I've taught at debate camps and clinics, and I also debated for the University of Oklahoma my freshman year of college.

I'm very "go with the flow." I'm well-versed in philosophy, so if that's your angle, I can dig it. If the round comes down to a single definition, that's cool too. This is your round, so do what you want to do, and I'll keep up with you.

I highly encourage you to use all of your time. You have plenty of it, so use it to your advantage. Do not be rude to each other - check your ego at the door. This is a great, time-worthy sport, don't waste your opportunities being ugly.

I'm looking forward to hearing your debate/performance, and I hope you have fun!

I did LD for 4 years and mustered about 200 rounds.

Feel free to email me if your questions reach beyond our time after the round!

Also please for the love of god add me to the e-mail chain

callahanstroud@gmail.com

Traditional

Speaks are based on how compelling and fluid your speaking was. The way you speak is totally irrelevant to my decision.

I assess the round by picking a winning framework and then applying that framework to the contention level debate. Framework itself does not impact my decision. I evaluate impacts through the "lens" of a criterion. Evidence does not Trump analytics. I find that often analytics can take out most evidence.

PF

a 20 second observation establishing an unwarranted philosophical weighing mechanism will not be evaluated. I'll weigh using the same loose notion of consequentialism most people use in day to day policy conversations. Give me good, analytical debate and I'll evaluate you accordingly.

Not traditional

I had a stint on the circuit my junior year and attended GDS a few years back. I'm as fluent in circuit language and argumentation as I am with traditional, but at some point I've debated against most kinds of positions. Policy is the one I'm most familiar with and feel the most comfortable weighing.

Here's my judging philosophy and my specific way of evaluating rounds:

Philosophy

I try to be tab. I will probably fail. To minimize the chance that you misunderstand or interpret the way I judge, refer to the bit below

1. Establish a weighing mechanism

Let's say that an affirmative criterion, a refutation to a negative Methodology K, and an affirmative T shell are the 3 arguments that the affirmative goes for in the 2AR. If I decide that the Methodology K is true, I no longer care about the criterion because it exists on a "lower" level of the debate. That being said, if I don't buy the K or the T shell, all I have left is the criterion and I will evaluate that. I will essentially start at the top and work my way down eventually stopping where I feel a side has distinguished themselves and proven an argument to be true.

2. Evaluate the round under said weighing mechanism

I will weigh and compare the impacts of the round under the established weighing mechanism. If I've decided that the framing of the T shell is the most important (lets say it emphasized fairness in the debate round) I no longer concern myself with the impacts of the criterion or the methodology K because they are irrelevant under the weighing mechanism. That being said, if you made a compelling argument that the impacts of the K are relevant under the T shell, I would absolutely weigh them

3. Tech > Truth with gut check unless compelled otherwise

If your argument is racist, it will fail the gut-check

If it's just stupid and your opponent doesn't have the sense to pick it apart, I will absolutely evaluate it

I will not evaluate unwarranted arguments. If you don't explain it, I don't particularly care if your opponent drops it. Be wary of this if you like to run tricks cases. A one sentence justification is fine if you give me a warrant, just make sure its there!

4. Speed is fine

Put a speech doc in front of my and I'll manage. Don't concern yourself with it unless I don't have anything to follow you with.

If you'll notice, my means of assessing both traditional and circuit boils down to the same principle. Give me a weighing mechanism and tell me how the impacts "weigh" under it. You will have no trouble if you do that

Hey y’all, I’m Matt.

He/Him/His pronouns

(Please add me to the email chain: madwitman@gmail.com)

Few notes about me - I debated for four years at Edmond Santa Fe in Oklahoma where I competed in policy, public forum, and speech for a while but ended up having a successful career in LD. I participated at the national tournament for all four years in various events. I was a policy debater for a few years in college at the University of Oklahoma as well. Graduated in 2019 and ended up in Tulsa where I am a management and data ecosystem consultant for organizations devoted to social good.

**TOP-LEVEL NOTE**: I recognize debate can be tough on people in different ways and it’s not a fully-equitable sport. If there is something I can do to make the debate safer or more comfortable for you (calling you by a name not on your ballot, using a different pronoun that is listed, accommodating for a disability, etc.), I will absolutely do everything in my power to make the space more accessible and/or safe for you. If you don’t feel comfortable telling me in the debate, feel free to email me at madwitman@gmail.com.

I used to have a very long, drawn out paradigm that went through my preferences for each off-case position, debate style, etc. but I have since simplified it. I think debaters tend to overthink it and I would rather you debate how you want. Ultimately, debate gave me the space I needed to find myself and I hope it does the same for you. That said, read whatever you want to in front of me (pending it isn’t racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.). Debate how you are comfortable. I was a “critical” debater throughout high school and college but will absolutely vote on well-executed policy arguments. Please don’t feel the need to pull out your school’s old Time Cube backfile just because you read that I’m a K debater - although it would be hilarious.

Couple things:

• I’m fine with speed in any debate format, just be clear.

• Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer or the email is sent.

• “Extend X argument” requires a warrant, not just those words

• I value line-by-line analysis and technical debate but I think a great debater knows the art of combining ‘tech things’ with the big picture

• If you do read some critical argument or K, don’t assume I know all of the literature base/what you are talking about. I love a well-executed K with a good explanation of the base.

• Theory and framework are fine - just slow down a little on the blips. I flow on paper - it benefits you if my flow is as clear as possible.

I’m sure I’m missing something so if you have any additional questions, feel free to ask. Have fun and take care.