Monty Python Invitational Virtual
2021 — Online, OK/US
Extemp Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I will be looking for which team can best identify the key points of clash in the round and demonstrate why they have won those points. Consequently, I would prefer to see quality of argument and depth of evidence and analysis on the key points rather than trying to drag all points through the round. (That doesn't mean drop things like crazy! It just means get clear on what's actually important to the debate and related to the resolution). I particularly dislike spreading; again, quality over quantity will win the round for me. I will also closely examine the wording of the resolution, so arguments that are not adequately linked to the resolution will not be considered.
So, my paradigm. When I judge, I will be using two different frameworks.
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.
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.
I mostly judge Lincoln Douglas, but I have coached all events offered by the NSDA and the OSSAA. I have been the coach at Cascia Hall since 2007-2008.
I am more comfortable with a more traditional style of debate, but will make my best effort to judge the round in front of me, even if it isn't stylistically what I am most comfortable with. That being said, no matter what style you prefer, debate is pretty much the same. Tell me how to make an evaluation and then tell me why you win under that evaluation.
If you have more specific questions, I'm happy to answer them before the round begins if all competitors are present.
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598
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.
*Note on virtual debating: SLOW DOWN a little, no matter what people want to believe speed does not transition AS WELL virtually as it does for in-person debating.
**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 things 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 need to have a claim, data, and warrant(s) on each card.**
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 good 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 and have an alternative that is explained and solves are good.
7. I will not decide the round over something X team did in another round, at some other tournament, or a team's judge prefs.
8. Email Chain access please: email@example.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.
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.
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. Some K lit bases I'm decently familiar with: Capitalism, Security, Anti-blackness, Natives, Reps (various types), Fem IR, Anthro, Nietzsche, and Queer theory. Some K lit bases I don't know very much about: Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze.
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.
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.” Average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), Excellent 29-29.9, Perfect 30 (I have given 3 in 20 years if HS judging) they all went on to win the NDT at some point. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to your opponents or partner during a round.
Have fun debating!
1. Please stand and look out during cross fire.
2. Please don't spread during speeches if it is not policy.
3. Don't keep track of your opponents' prep time
Graduated from Guymon in 2020. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tell me why one is a better/worse model for debate and why I should prefer it in round.
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 @ firstname.lastname@example.org
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!
I did PF debate for 4 years in high school, qualified to both State and Nationals. I now work as a debate coach at Westmoore. - That being said I am familiar with most types of argumentation and styles of debate.
I vote primarily on frameworks/Impact Calc. If you don't have a framework, adopt your opponent's. You should be attempting to win on your framework and your opponent's framework, not telling me why you won on your framework and theirs doesn't matter. If there's two frameworks in a round, they're both valuable. I don't like to have to do the weighing on my own at the end of a debate, it should be clear what the round is weighed on. If you can't prove the impact calculus of your argument or why your argument matters, chances are I will not buy it.
Speed. I'm okay with mild speed, but not with spreading. I should still be able to understand what you're saying and flow without missing a lot.
Sign post what you're attacking. I prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.
Crossfire. I do not flow crossfire. If it's important bring it up in a speech.
Online Rounds. Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards or having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest. And please put me in the email chain, email@example.com. The faster you go the more you glitch (I really don't care if you go fast, it just happens) but if you're going to read "fast", even if you're not spreading, it would be in your best interest to send a speech doc
Argumentation. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I might have some trouble if you are going very fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.
Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the specific place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.
Please don't ask me to time. In order to give you the best feedback and round I'd rather you timed yourselves, instead of me giving you time signals or calls for prep.
Thank you and good luck!
PF debater for 2 years with a some experience in LD.
What I am okay with:
- Progressive debate (K’s, Theory, Tech, etc)
- Spreading (IF you flash me your files)
- Yes you can time yourself
- Off-case arguments
Framework is obviously always important, but I do heavily focus on the contention level debate. Tell me how to weigh the round or I'm going to go off of straight impact calculus. Keep things organized and easy to follow on the flow because I am a flow orientated judge. Also, MAKE SURE TO EXTEND.
I am a former LD debater, having graduated high school in 2014 and had qualified for Nats in LD. When I debated, I would speak quickly, but would not spread. I'm okay with some speed, but not ecstatic about it. As a now law student, I find spreading or speaking quickly doesn't garner you any beneficial, real-life skill. Rather, if you can speak at a moderate pace and concisely articulate your arguments, you can easily best any opponent for me (and gain a useful skill along the way -- especially if you're thinking about a future legal career!)
You can run "progressive" arguments with me. However, you need to make sure you are actually explaining the argument well and not have me fill in the gaps for you. Many students run a K or a counterplan, yet fail to fully establish and connect the argument -- you have to walk it step by step.
I don't care much for the debate up at the Value level. Justice is good. Societal Welfare is good. It doesn't provide as much of a framework of the debate for me as the criterion does -- this gives me the lens the evaluate the round or how to view your case. Make sure your arguments link back to your criterion (how does X argument achieve your criterion, for example).
Lastly, and I say this from personal experience, be nice during the round. I have no tolerance for someone being rude during a round. That doesn't mean you can't be aggressive in making lots of arguments. However, constantly interrupting during CX, trying to just fluster your opponent, or making rude comments will automatically make you lose the round. Debate should be fun!
Feel free to ask me questions post-round if you have any!
3 years CX at Moore High School, 1 year LD
NYU '24, NYU Parli
email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
be respectful of everyone in the round, bigotry is not tolerated -_-
Keep your own prep just in case!
I am familiar with traditional and progressive styles of LD. The first thing I look at when writing a ballot is the framework of the debate. That lets me decide what impacts and arguments I should prioritize. I am open to any type of argument as long as you can defend it! Make sure to clearly sign post your arguments. Arguments should have a warrant attached, otherwise they can be difficult to evaluate. For specific issues like condo/topicality, I am open to anything, with the obvious exception that the arguments are well constructed and have a clear impact story. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!
TLDR: Read whatever, just be organized and give clear voters / comparative analysis.
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
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.
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.
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:
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
My name is Petra (Pay-truh). I graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in Sociology with a focus in Criminology and have worked in financial crime detection and investigating. Should you feel the need to know my qualifications, I have 9 years of experience with Policy/CX and 7 of PF & LD. I competed in CX in high school, qualified to NSDA 2x, had a TOC bid, placed 3rd at state in CX, was a state quarterfinalist in LD, and have coached CX, LD, PF, and Congress. Affiliations: Cheyenne East (my alma mater) '12-'16, Edmond Santa Fe (individuals) '16-'17, Norman North '18 - present. I have been lucky enough to coach students who have advanced to semi-finals in Congressional Debate at nationals, late out-rounds in LD and PF at nationals, and late out-rounds in LD, PF, and CX at the state level.
That being said - I have had about 8 months off from debate, so bear with me as I may not be not familiar with the literature on current topics. My brain and ears aren't back in debate mode yet :)
I tend to default to policymaking, but my primary evaluation and if no debater has clearly won or told me where and why to vote, I will default to stock issues. If the aff hasn't upheld their obligation of affirming the resolution (or providing a solid case why they shouldn't), I will presume negative. I’m not a fan of vulgarity in-round. Please time yourself. Open Cross is okay, but if you don't engage or talk over your partner your points will reflect that. If you bring spectators, they must be respectful of all competitors and judges.
Speed is fine, I prefer slow on plan/advocacy statements and tags/authors. Use an indicator when switching between tags and arguments. Clarity is key to getting on the flow. I will say clear once, and if I can't decipher you after that your arguments aren't making it on my flow.
In the era of online debate, I suggest recording your speeches just in case of tech difficulties. I will adhere to all tournament guidelines regarding competition and tech issues. Slow down for the sake of mic processing. You probably don't need all 10 DAs. Please try your best to keep your cameras on, I understand this is not always possible.
Policy - My background is in traditional policy debate. I am well-versed in topicality and straight policy, but I will listen to just about anything you can and want to run. I appreciate creativity in debate. Cool with Ks and theory, but I have a high threshold for in-round abuse. Not a fan of plan+ / plan inclusive anything. Tell me where to vote and why.
Cross:It's probably binding, and often underutilized. Make it strategic - analyze the links, perms, make your opponents prove their solvency. If you’re being shifty and don't know what you're talking about, your opponent doesn't know what you're talking about, and I definitely don't know what you're talking about. For the love of all things sacred, don't be a jerk.
CPs: You must have a plan text and a net benefit. Tell me why it's competitive. You should probably have a really good solvency advocate. Full disclosure, I think I have only ever voted for one PIC, I think that a perm makes this a pretty easy win for Aff. I don't believe States CP gets to fiat all 50 states + relevant US territories (unless you have a decent theory shell, in which case go for it).
DAs: I love me some case-specific DA's. Do the impact analysis!! Aff too. For the love of all things holy, please make it a complete argument. I don't love seeing a 10-off 1NC with severely underdeveloped DAs that lack links and UQ.
Kritiks: I have a solid technical understanding of K's but don’t know all theory/philosophy. I'm not a philosophy hack; I won't do the work for you. It's critical that you understand what your advocacy is. If you don't know/understand, I don't want to vote for it. PLEASE don't read a K because you think I want to hear one. I would much rather hear a good, in-depth debate about what you're good at. If your K is about debate being irredeemable and a black hole...consider who your audience is. I've dedicated almost half my life to the activity and understand that it can be made better, so let's put in the work to make it better.
Topicality: Good. Great. I typically default to competing interpretations. It's not (usually) a RVI. Just like anything, read it only if you understand which violation you're reading and if there is clear abuse. You need standards. I have a higher threshold for FXT and XT because of how policymaking typically operates in the real world, but if you feel there is clear in-round abuse, knock yourself out.
Theory: Most of the theory debates I see are bad. That makes me sad - I like theory. I will listen to some well-thought-out theory any day of the week. I will consider any discourse args on reasons to reject a team, so long as their impacted out. Don't be racist/sexist, etc. Not a huge fan of framework debates because I see very few that are good. I tend to vote for world v world and real-world impacts anyway. Neg worlds should probably be cohesive, unless you have a theory shell to backup why not.
Misc: Don't be mean. Don't cheat. I'll call you on stealing prep. If you do it after I call you on it I have no issue auto-dropping you. I don't want to have to read the evidence - you should be explaining it. Post-rounding (asking questions is fine - I will be more than happy to explain my thought process - I'm talking about arguing or bringing up things you should have used to answer but didn't) won't change my ballot but will guarantee you'll get the lowest speaks possible. If you run wipeout, you better have a dang good warrant and dang good framework shell to run with it.
LD:- I did traditional LD in high school. I look for lots of work on the framework debate and framework/case interaction. If you're about progressive debate, that's cool too - but incorporate some semblance of framework or a role of the ballot. I don't want to see a CP, DA or K read with zero interaction with the resolution or aff. Again, don't run a K because you think that's what I want to hear.
PF: See: LD, Policy. Theory is cool, and welcomed, here too. Disclosure/paraphrasing theory - I have a high threshold of abuse here as well. Progressive/fast is cool. Traditional is cool too.
TLDR; If there is no clear reason given for me to vote on either side, I will default to stock issues because it is what I know the best. Does aff meet their minimum requirements of affirmation? Does the negative do their job of negating the resolution/the aff? Do the off-case arguments link? Are alternatives mutually exclusive? Do the alternatives solve the aff? Impact it out. In-round, fiated implementation, and on the flow. For everything. Don't steal prep. If you have any specific questions, please ask! my email for chains and questions: email@example.com
Most importantly, have fun, and be kind to one another! Happy debating! - P :)
Hey y’all, I’m Matt.
(Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org)
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 email@example.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.
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.