Lindale Winter UIL
2023 — Lindale, TX/US
Policy Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Put me on the Email Chain- email@example.com
Currently Debate at the University of North Texas in NFA LD, similar to a one person policy debate.
About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>truth most of the time.
Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.
Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.
AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns.
Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read on it" is not an argument by itself you need to explain this. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing.
Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. Of course you need a net-benefit to the counter-plan in order to win it whether it is internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.
Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously the most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.
Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.
Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.
LD:I do not know what tricks are. Please read an impact to T-FW.
I have nearly two decades of judging experience, primarily on the UIL policy circuit. I am a policy maker judge and will look for the most pragmatic and real world situations in round.
It is the role of the negative to provide sufficient clash, and I'll vote on most issues in the round if you are believable and persuasive. Feel free to run any argument and make sure you provide impacts to weigh on the ballot.
I am okay with speed in the round but will signal to you if I am unable to flow. However, I am ultimately not concerned with the number of arguments in the round. I am looking for quality, depth of understanding, and educational clash. Make sure both teams are listening to arguments being ran in the round and respond accordingly.
Above all, be respectful to each other.
(whitehouse'22; UTT'26 - debate/IEs 4yrs - collegiate debater)
she/her ; (lay-lah-knee)
pref speech drop.
policy debate was my main event in high school, i've been in your shoes before! trust me, i will try my best not to screw you over.
i would describe myself as a true tab judge. this means, run whatever you'd like! the room is yours !! DO NOT BE AFRAID OF CLASH. above all, be polite to your opponents. (more on this at the bottom.)
speech- first and foremost, debate is a communication event. i can usually keep up with spreading, however, if it becomes unintelligible i will put my pen down (and you will notice it). speaks will be awarded to those who enunciate, have little verbal clutter, and demonstrate professionalism. organization is key. i will be very strict on this.
t- i love a good T debate! great opportunity to demonstrate strategic skills and utilize theory args. articulate violation/standards/voters clearly. do not expect me to flow for arbitrary and/or overlimiting interps. i default predictability.
k/fw- i am a huge fan of theory args. i believe they make debate extremely interesting and will listen intently. that being said, BE FAMILIAR WITH THE K LITERATURE. if you decide to run a cap/psychoanalysis/[insert niche critical theorist here] k, understand what you are reading and be able to coherently articulate the reason to vote on it. if you're going to use buzzwords - define them & tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest. if you run a k aff, good luck.
disads/cp's- these are fine, however if you choose to run 3+ and then claim to "lose neg ground" in the debate, it will affect my RFD and i will call it out. da's (and k's) should serve as obvious net benefits to your cp. PLEASE IMPACT CALC. impact framing is key. structural violence v. nuclear war doesn't matter if i am not told which is worse. i will default to my own interp if this is not done (it should be).
theory- i feel very comfortable with theory args, just make sure you warrant out why it should be evaluated in the debate. this means clear interps, violations, voters, etc etc. i am not going to do the work for you on why education and fairness is important- that's your job.
misc- hate redundancy, do not repeat yourself over and over. signpost clearly. open cx is fine if the host allows it. don't care where you sit. i will call it out in my RFD. last speeches >>>. these will make or break the round for me. do NOT allow your energy to drop, even if you feel as though you're losing! keep me interested! debate is supposed to be "fun". allow your passion to spill over in your speeches. GET ON THAT SOAP BOX!! (this applies to all events.)
i debated ld a few times (and won each time). however, i am in no way familiar with all of the ld jargon. remember, i am first and foremost a policy debater / interp'r.
okay with whatever. love clash! don't be rude. keep me interested.
thoroughly explain your values and criterion. it will take a lot to persuade me on broad values (such as life or justice) without just and clearly articulated criterion/warrants.
three things: passion. energy. clarity.
this is your chance to express yourself! show me who you are, why you're here! do not just read the script, give me emotion! pazazz! dramatics! & being louder does not mean better.
extemp- try your hardest to reduce verbal clutter. this is a communication event, just talk to me! each move you physically make should have a purpose; no swaying! breathe, you got this!
i will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. be respectful? not that difficult. we are here to offer a safe and diverse place for intellectual discourse and healthy conversation. i truly admire the culture speech and debate has fostered, so uphold that. be open minded and considerate of those around you. any disrespect or unnecessary aggression will automatically lose you the round.
any further questions/clarification, feel free to contact me anytime! :)
My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 22 years and I am an NSDA Two-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.
I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.
Tab judge (I.E. I will not connect the dots for you). Any and all arguments need to have offense behind them for them to be counted Stock issues, DA's, CP's, are all good. Theory and K's I will listen to and weigh as long as they are not being run just to run. This is a speaking event and not a speed reading event is my take on speed in a debate round. Meaning, if it is not on my flow, it does not exist in the debate. I do not like new off-case arguments in the 2 NC unless the affirmative opens the door.
If you need to reach out, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org. The order is going to be high school CX, college parli, high school LD, and high school PF. As I judge more things, the list will get longer. I did CX for four years in high school and parli for three years in college. In CX, my highest achievement was octafinalist at UIL state and in parli, my highest achievement is second in the nation.
High School CX
- I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make. It is your round and I am simply here to see how good you did.
- Tech over truth.
- I like to see teams that can collapse to their winning arguments. You should not be reading everything from the first constructive in the last constructive.
- Please don't reread cards. I heard you the first time.
- Framework is not negotiable. I need to know how you want me to vote. I need to know what impacts are the biggest. I need to know what to do, they did not tell me in tab room.
- I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments with what I think about them.
A. Policy affs - 5/5 - The bread and butter of being aff. I don't have too many notes on what I want or expect. At its core, I think you should be identifying a problem and how you fix it. Some framing about why your problem is really bad never hurts. Remember, as the aff, this is your only offense, and therefore, you should be protecting it like the precious baby it is.
B. K affs - 5/5 - Sometimes the topic is problematic and you don't want to be associated with the state. That's OK, you can be untopical. My only prerequisite question is why are you untopical? If you have a good answer for that, then your k aff is welcome and will be evaluated fairly. This doesn't mean I won't vote on T, so make sure you are ready to defend that answer to that previous question.
C. Disads - 3/5 - I have nothing against the disad, but it can't win alone. You either need to prove the aff can't solve, outweigh the aff, or solve the aff through a CP. The disad alone is like a ship in the night, and guess what, it is passing other ships. With that, I don't think any negative policy strat is complete without it, it is truly a filler for the ages.
D. CP - 4/5 - I don't have anything against the CP, but I never really read it. I went straight from defending the squo in high school to being a radical k reader in college. With that, I am willing to vote on the CP and have no hesitation doing so if it is competitive, solves the aff, and avoids net benefit offense. With that, net benefits can be a form of competition. In regard to all CP theory, check out what I have to say about theory.
E. Theory - 5/5 - I love theory debates because they alleviate crucial burnout by giving debaters and judges the ability to hear something other than the topic again. With that, however, a theory argument is like any other argument in the sense that it has parts that can't be ignored or neglected. Too many debaters think it's ok to simply say "this is abusive" and think they deserve the round. I need you to create an interpretation, show a violation, give standards to defend your interpretation and give voters for me to care. Without this, you're just wasting time you could use to read more disads.
F. Topicality - 4/5 - It's just a theory. I'm voting it lower, not because I'm less likely to vote on it, or even that it is bad. I simply see too many teams decide that they don't have to do the work of voters, and that being untopical is simply enough. It is not. If the affirmative is hypothetically solving all poverty, I don't care if they cheated in a debate round. I need you to make me care, by saying why education and fairness are actually super cool.
G. Kritik - 4/5 - I like the kritik. I think more people should read the kritik. With that, you have to know how to run a kritik and what your kritik is about. If you don't know the four parts AND you don't know at least the basic level of your kritik literature, don't do it. Otherwise, I'm really cool with the kritik.
1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make, but warrant analysis is where these arguments should really be weighed.
2. Tech over truth.
3. Framework and collapsing to a win condition is not an option. I need to know how to vote and I need to know what a vote for either side actually means, not options for what it means.
4. I think I'm ok with speed. 7 or 8 out of 10.
5. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments and what I think about them.
A. Policy affs 5/5 - I think policy affs are good. I don't have a lot of notes on them. Usually, framing in the PMC, be it impact framing or round framing, helps me know what the aff is supposed to be doing for me.
B. K affs 4/5 - Slight preference for policy, but I'll vote on them no doubt. I read them more than policy affs myself. I just think that in a world with a new topic each round, you have to have a good reason to read your k aff. If you don't have strong topic links or links to standard debate, then that TVA is going to be fire against you.
C. Disads 2/5 - I don't hate disads, but they are useless on their own. Case defense, impact framing, or a counterplan is required to make them work. I need to know the aff doesn't solve, your impacts are larger, or that you can solve the aff, otherwise I just have to pick the impacts I like.
D. Counterplans 5/5 - Really cool way to create advocacies with direct competition to the policy aff. Needs a net benefit.
E. Kritik 5/5 - Negative kritik is a great way to question the aff.
F. Theory 5/5 - Meta debate is fun and I feel comfortable analyzing it. Frivolous theories aren't great, but the staples (condo, be topical, multi-actor fiat, spec, etc.) make great debate when done right. Make sure you have standards and voters, they are not the same.
G. Topicality 3/5 - I don't dislike it, but in an event where only half the community reads the topic, someone who is getting there deserves some leeway.
I would consider myself a traditional stock issues judge. I understand that debate is evolving and changing and I try to consider myself open to new ideas and approaches. Kritiques and new approaches to framework are not my favorite arguments, but I will listen to them and try to evaluate the round based on what I am hearing and not just my own preferences. I value that debaters are professional and courteous to each other. It is acceptable to have command of the CX period, but another to be rude. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I will listen to K and CP's but I prefer traditional arguments such as T's, D/A's, solvency, inherency, harms, etc. . I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC. (This is not required but it makes the round more interesting so speeches do not become repetitive.) I do not mind speed as long as I can flow it. Please provide a roadmap before speaking but be aware that I will time them. I will be the official timekeeper, but it is helpful, especially in the virtual platform where I am muted, that debaters also time themselves.
I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.
I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.
In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.
My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.
I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing/sending files (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to send files. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.
In terms of critical debate: I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.
Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.
I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.
All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.
I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.
Public Forum Debate Philosophy
My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.
I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.
I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.
Who I am:
Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.
I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.
I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.
Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.
Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.
Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.
Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.
Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?
Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.
Circuit level speed.
I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.
Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.
One More Concern:
There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.
I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.
Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.
I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.
I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.
1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.