I attended the TOC in 3 of my years of HS policy debate. Now I'm a dad hoping my kids develop an interest in this wonderful activity that hones and sharpens the mind. I strive to be tabula rasa, but--

Overall:

Win the nitty gritty, but don't underestimate the power of good storytelling. Do good risk analysis. Cut through the noise and let me know what's important. It's your job to tell me what's important. <--2A and 2N take notice!

I generally will only read a card after a round if that card has been contested and it is important. I value the ability of a debater to articulate an idea using their own words.

I've been out of the activity for many years. I'm not ready for serious spreading. Sign post clearly.

Let’s mimic an in person round and keep cameras on.

If you have any real world issues affecting the round that require accommodation, like you need to keep your camera off, bad wifi, tech issues, etc message me immediately. I want the round to be an inclusive environment and don’t want the real world to impact the round.

K (applies only to certain divisions of policy debate):

I’ve only seen a handful of K rounds so far. K did not exist when I was a kid. (I literally learned about K on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-te7QyiPlE)

For me, K is a voting issue *IF* you’re explicitly giving me some framing in rebuttals on how it’s a voting issue and explain the framework. If there is no framing and framework in rebuttals, I have trouble treating K as a voting issue by default and would use a policy framework, treat it as a counterplan, and vote on the utilitarian net benefits of plan vs K alternative. It’s your burden to give me the K framework and frame it for me in rebuttals.

Speaker points:

- - Go point by point over the opposing team’s arguments and directly clash with them (as opposed to just reading a pre-prepared brief on a contention without even referencing what the opposing team has argued.) This applies to all rebuttals and to parts of 2AC and 2NC. Even 1NC has an opportunity to clash with the case contentions directly.

- - Notice how this PF debater cites her opponent’s arguments before giving her own numbered responses (starting at 30:29): https://youtu.be/MUnyLbeu7qU?t=1795 That is how you’re supposed to directly clash. A flow of the round would show clash like this (notice no dropped arguments): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DyCoxFGGMV7lLdbNstjgOD-814sY_1dU/view?usp=sharing

- - Don’t drop important arguments made by the other team. Feel free to drop arguments strategically but only if it is intentional. A team that has mastered flowing will naturally be better at direct clash (and will win more often). I encourage you to submit your flow sheets of the round to me. I’ll give you constructive feedback.

- - Cards are great, but debates are won with arguments. Focus on coming up with arguments that directly clash and respond to what was said. I value analytical arguments made using your own words. Reading off of briefs should only be happening in the earlier speeches.

- - As the debate goes further into rebuttals, deepen your explanation of what should be a voting issue and why. <-esp 2N and 2A

- - As the rebate goes further into rebuttals, deepen your explanation of why you’re winning as a whole. Weave together all the issues in the entire round. <-esp 2N and 2A

Debaters should speak clearly, especially the tag lines, if you want me to write it down on my flow.

If I cannot understand the debaters, nothing you say will be written down on my flow.

I like when debaters respect each other, and will take away speaker points if they are rude.

By the end of the round, be sure to tell me why you win and include impact calculus.

There is no reason for cursing or vulgar language in the debate space. If there is, speaker points will be taken away.

Overall Paradigm:

Tabula Rasa judge:

• If the presented Plan is in a Stock Issues format, then I will vote as a stock-issues judge once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Comparative Advantage Plan is run, then I will shift to a policymaker framework and weigh Advantages against DAs (see the note on DAs below), once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Kritikal Aff is run, then all bets are off. Run framework and tell me why I should be voting for you.

Kritiks are a priori to Topicality, which in turn is a priori to the Plan.

Speed:

I enjoy spreading, but I dislike fast mumbling. If you’re not a proficient spreader, slow down. Reducing speed for tags, cites, and underviews helps your case immensely.

Theory:

Theory won’t win a debate on its own. Claiming in-round abuse or that your argument is better for education requires justification and strong links.

Kritiks:

I love Kritiks, but they must be strongly linked to the Plan. Otherwise, Kritiks are non-unique DAs.

Tell me the story of the Kritik. I want to hear persuasion and thought behind these arguments. A well-done K will make my weekend.

DAs:

It can be tough to weigh DAs against a Stock Issues case. If a Stock Issues case is given by AFF, I would appreciate NEG providing only DAs that diminish/turn the stock issues of the Plan.

Please, no politics DAs unless you can prove that the loss of political capital extends past enactment of the plan. I am a strong believer in Fiat.

Things that make my heart go pitter-pat:

• Confident, assured underviews
• Focusing on the claims above the evidence
• Teams that stay on the offense and show clear strategy
• TOPICALITY (as long as it is a well-structured T debate that is strongly linked to the Plan)

Things that make me cringe in my seat:

• Evidence battles
• Any kind of murky ethics (mis-claiming dropped contentions, falsely stating rules, overusing flash time for prep, etc.)
• Having to vote on a weakly supported, but crucial, argument that wasn't answered.

Former HS / College Debater

I am open to all arguments and try and remain as neutral as possible. It is your job to ensure I know your argument without studying it myself. I am okay with speed, and I flow, but if you are gasping for air, chances are I am not flowing. If it is not on my flow, I will not consider it. Tell me where you are on the flow and go line by line. Tag your arguments; do not expect me to flow based on author cards. I appreciate a direct yet respectful clash and want to hear definitive links. I am a timekeeper and expect you to stay within the time allotted. You should track your prep time, although I do on my end.

Make it straightforward for me on what and why you win.

Dawson '21 in Houston

Tufts University '25

Debating as a Hybrid with Harvard as Tufts

Please put me in the email chain and feel free to reach out if you have any questions about debating at Tufts: mattjstinson2003@gmail.com

TLDR:

pref me KvK>Clash> Policy and give me a card doc after the round

Please do not over adapt to my paradigm. You do you and I will adjudicate the debate to the best of my ability. I always hate when judges strongly inflict their biases into decisions so I try to be as non-intervention as possible. But inevitably, I have some preconceptions and biases about debate so look through before rounds.

In high school, I was a double two going for policy args on aff and setcol and daoism on the neg, but in college I am a 1N/2A reading primarily flex args from across the library

I am a huge fan of argument innovation - make cool and original args and Ill reward you with extra high speaks

I like reading ev but pls do the work for me - if you frame your arguments clearly and basically write the ballot for me you will be far ahead.

Im kinda of a points fairy and reward debaters who are funny and make the debate enjoyable and educational.

Im not the type of judge if your debate style is bullying your opponents or being outright aggressive to them.

Finally, please just be nice to each other. I understand debate can be competitive at times, but try your best to be respectful and kind to your opponents. Problematic behavior, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia, is completely unacceptable and will result in immediate judge intervention to ensure the safety of debaters.

Specifics:

Policy Aff vs K:

I have no strong leanings either way. These are my favorite type of debates to watch and judge. Kinda weird flow choice by me but in one off debates I prefer to flow different parts ie. FW, ontology, perms and links on different sheets so pls give me pen time

I think top level: both teams need to win an instructive claim on what the role of the ballot is and how I should weigh the aff vs the alt or the squo. Framework debating is often underutilized on the high school level and I think in a lot of debates it becomes a wash, which isnt good for both teams

I prefer for links to be to the consequences of the plan, generally, i find links of omission and reps links to not be super strategic. They are winnable but I would like some aff-specific contextualization with fleshed-out impacts and turns case analysis.

I find in a lot of fiat K ontology debates are really reductive and their isnt really explanations from either side about what the implications of their examples are and why is this the case.

I find 2AC shotgunning perms to be annoying and I give the 2NR leeway for new answers if a shotgunned perm suddenly takes on a new meaning in the 1AR. I prefer perms beyond PDB to be explained in the 2ac in like a sentence

Im not the judge for vague alt theory, use it as a solvency takeout instead

I think alt debating is usually pretty bad and isnt explained enough how the alt solves the links. Both teams need to pay heed to this and do more work on this part of the debate

Clash:

I believe FW is a legitimate form of rejoinder against non-topical advocacy. Having read a K-aff and FW consistently in college I find myself to be middle of the road in these debates with no strong leanings either way

Generally speaking, I view FW as a sliding scale. We meet affs will have an easier time while affs that dont engage with the topic theme at all will have a harder time.

My best advice is to choose an angle against FW and stick to it rather than going for a we meet, counter interp, and Impact turn all in the same 2AR.

I believe for me personally debate is a game that has some value outside of debate. I believe fairness is an external impact, but I find clash or skills to usually be more strategic against most K affs

I think for a winning 2NR in these debates I need clear impact explanation, offense on their CI/IT, and a bit on the case page to minimize case cross apps

I am also quite sympathetic to presumption and rejoinder bad arguments and I think sometimes going for case in the 2NR is quite strategic

For the 2AR to get my ballot explain your theory of power, its offensive applications on framework, and win either a counter-interp that is a better model, we meet, or an impact turn to FW

My final thoughts are I appreciate solid case debating. I think a coherent 4-5 minutes on case with both offense and defense to central claims will be way more strategic than a generic cap K

KvK

I lean on the side that the aff gets the perm, but the burden for explanation is higher than we sorta mention x or we would work in solidarity with y. Treat the perm like independent advocacy and explain why it resolves the links and explain how it would function.

I prefer as specific link contextualization as you can get, I think ontology without contextualization arent the best in front of me

Id like more impact comparison on both sides and explain how your theory of power interacts and supersedes your opponents

CPs:

Some of my favorite args in debate are clever process cps or pics. At the same time, my most hated arguments are perennial troll cps like con con or consult nato

2Ns honestly get away with murder with a lot of these shady cps. 2As hold the line on theory and call out these abusive cp texts

I tend to lean neg on condo at 4 options and below, states fiat, and process cp theory and aff on international fiat, condo above 5 options, and consult/conditions cp.

I usually judge kick unless given a reason not to

Theory is usually not a voter unless the 2nr goes for the arg in question (this excludes condo)

ill vote on condo but im also a reasonable person.

DAs:

Generally speaking, the more ev the better

Impact calc and a good cp/case push is key to get my ballot on a da

Turns case is also a good idea

Case

I have a soft spot for squirrelly affs that interpret the topic in an exciting way

Case debating is underrated - 99% of affs can get destroyed if u just do more than the bare minimum to answer them

Case turns are good and you should be reading lots of them in your 1nc

a trend im noticing with policy affs is alot of them read just god awful impact scenarios - neg pls dont drop them or ill be sad

a lot of case debating is just tagline extensions with rly no argumentative interaction - pls give warrants

go for an impact turn on case :)

T:

I tend to lean competing interps.

To easily win my ballot, treat t like a disad and have a coherent story for why your vision of the topic is better than your opponents

Im not likely to vote for bottom of the barrel args like ASPEC or disclosure

if u hide procedurals ima prob not flow it and if i do realize it ur getting a 25

Misc

I'm fine for the death K, wipeout, spark etc.

Go for memes - trolling is an underrated art in debate

I don't like when teams play music in rounds

The older the card, the better - read some ancient texts

I believe the ballot can only remedy who did the better debating- anything else is reflected in speaks

Nba references are much appreciated but don't say you're the Lebron of HS debate

LD:

K>Larp> T/Theory > Phil > Tricks

TBH i dont know how to give speaks in LD so ill prob default to 29.4 and go from there

generally speaking the closer your are to policy the better

I find phil and tricks debates make me want to slam my head into my desk

Ive noticed a lot of lders are borderline unflowable - do pen drills or slow down and be clear

Basically ditto my policy thoughts here

PF

Ditto my policy thoughts - closer you are to policy the better

i have not seen a good k debate in pf and its likely i never will

I have seen some decent theory debates but they are not fun to judge