Hey guys!

I'm so glad that you guys have decided to participate in such an amazing curriculum. I started to debate my junior year and got the fantastic opportunities to compete at state in policy and congress, as well as NSDA nationals for Original Oratory! I currently get to compete on an amazing Parliamentary team at UT Tyler with the most incredible coach who has raised several national title holders. I love debate, and you should too. As for my paradigm here it is!

Policy; I think the most important thing in the debate is education, Don't focus on winning or losing but what you take away from the debate, I think it is the affs job to prove that the world is worse than the status quo and if this is successful I will vote aff. However, if the neg proves otherwise, I would vote there. But other than that, I am open to any debate, I love K's as a parli debater, showcase what you have!

Congress; Congress can be aggressive, passionate, confident, and reasonable and you will succeed.

Extemp; Really focus on your movement and language throughout the speech, it really gets my attention, but also be organized in your speech and stances.

speech events; the more passion the better

super traditional stock judge. In the end I vote on the case that solves the most harms and minimizes the most negative impacts.

DOF @ Athens High School (TX) 2023-Present

Debated Collegiately at Texas Tech University (NPDA)

whonea@athensisd.net

Please have specific questions about my paradigm if curious. Just asking, "what is your paradigm" is too broad of a question and we don't have time before a round to run down every little detail about how I feel about debate.

Speed - I think there is a place for spreading, I don't judge enough super fast nat circuit rounds to be accustomed to it right off in my first round of the tournament. But, I do think I can adapt rather quickly. I'm flowing on paper without the doc, so do with that what you will.

Analysis of the Circuits: I have come to develop a philosophy that between UIL & TFA/TOC CX debate; they are not doing the same event entirely. The best way I can describe the split is; UIL is focused more on eloquence & persuasion and TFA/TOC CX debate is the best representation of debate being a "game". When teaching students the difference I always compare TFA/TOC to a version of chess. The pieces represent the arguments, the first constructive's goals are to get as many pieces on the board as they can. Thats why spreading exists. Then they commence a technical game of moving pieces, absorbing the other side's, until one sides remains supreme. That being said, I believe there is immense value in learning to do both versions at a high level & will always encourage debaters to practice the skills needed to do both.

IP Topic Specific: I still believe the debate is yours and I will evaluate it how you tell me to. However, its disingenuous to deprive you of my sub-conscious opinions about the topic. I have found many of my debate opinions challenged by argument availability on this years topic. On a general level I think process cps. multiplank cps, & the use of conditionality should be restricted in debate. HOWEVER, I have become a lot less adamant about that given the lack of good generic disad ground on this topic. For T debates, interps that are contextual to the topic area are preferable. If your reading a hyper restrictive interp please be ready to answer case list questions. Especially because I don't think there is an aff currently on the topic that can meet T-Penalties.

TLDR:My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round.

Flowing - I will flow on paper if space allows it. If I do open a speech doc, its to read evidence as I follow along but I'll only flow what I hear you say. I will apply arguments in the line by line where you tell me to, however, if you start spewing information without telling me where on the flow, I'll just flow the speech straight down, and some arguments will get conceded without ink next to them.

Policy -

Affs - Read one..... I'm probably better suited for affs with a plan text but you can decide that based on my analysis below on K affs & performance. Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters. Whether its war, structural violence, etc.

K Affs - The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.

Performance - I haven't judged much performance at all in the last 2 years, so I'm not up to date on the deployment of it. However, I did defend identity performances in high school & college. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate and how it should shape my decision making calculus.

T- I default that the aff is topical. The neg has the burden to prove otherwise. I default to competing interps weighing offense in the standards level debate. I often find that competing interps and reasonability require essentially the same amount of judge intervention. Competing interps relies on a judges individual metric for "how much offense" is needed to win an interp, this is mirrored by "how much of a we meet" is needed to throw out T. Fairness is my favorite impact, I think education that is specific to debate can only be generated when both sides have equitable access to clash.

FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad. You probably have little risk of winning a collapse of debate impact. K's have been read for decades and yet, here we are. Probably should go for a more proximal, in round fairness lost scenario.

DA - The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.

PTX - By the time I'm at a tournament again, the election will have passed. I think congress is back in session so maybe some rider da or agenda politics might be relevant. Please just update your evidence; i'm tired of judging politics debates with uniqueness evidence that is multiple months old.

CP - I like counterplan debate. I have come to accept that planks are going to be a circuit norm nowadays. I guess I'm fine with them, the only thing I ask is that if your reading more than 4+ planks and forsee it being the 2nr, you need to start collapsing in the block. Make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has. The CP needs to AVOID the link to the net benefit, not SOLVE it. If the CP solves the link, the permutation probably does as well.

K’s - I am not as well read on k lit as I used to be. When I debated it was a lot of Cap, Baudrillard, Queer Theory, & Trans Rage literature I found myself delved into. My teams usually stay pretty basic with Cap, Security, other basics. In all K debates I will always start on the fw level to decide if they get to weigh the aff. Also, don't be afraid to kick the alt and go for it as a disad if they have good alt defense. Too many debaters ignore this as the strat and I won't evaluate it that way unless you tell me to.

Theory - I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage.

Condo - I will evaluate the condo debate objectively through an evaluation of the standards argumentation. If your going for it in front of me, you have a better chance of winning it if you read a perf con standard. I've had interesting conversations with people about what it means to be "going for" an argument. Does it mean you can't kick it? Does it mean it has to be the position your staking the round on? If you could clarify this in your interp that would be great.

LD

I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I prefer traditional LD debate and do not typically enjoy policy arguments being brought over into this event. That does not mean that kritikal debate can't exist here, I just don't like plan text and policy affs or counterplans. If you are a quote "tricks debater" please strike me.

PF

I have not judges PF since doing it online in 2021. I have no idea what the modern norms are. If the debate has devolved to shortened policy, please see my paradigm above.

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 23 years and I am an NSDA Three-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.

I believe Speech & Debate, in all forms, is primarily a communication sport. The two greatest takeaways from your time here into your future life will be having learned how to reason out an issue, and how to present your arguments in a clear and organized way.

Because of this, the most important part of my paradigm is how much I HATE speed/spread debate. If I can't understand what you're saying, it's as if you never said it so far as my ballot is concerned. Just talk to me like a normal person!! Tell me what you're thinking! Give me an argument to follow along with, and try not to sound like the end of a medicine commercial.

I also value professionalism a great deal. You don't have to be stiff and formal at all times, but I dislike the use of casual language in speeches ("Dude," "man," etc), and I HATE the use of swearing, personal attacks, and interruptions. Part of the value of Speech & Debate is fostering productive conversations between people who disagree -- and in these divisive times, the more we can listen to and respect each other, the better.

As far as my paradigm in CX/Policy Debate, I am an old-fashioned stock issues judge. In the absence of that, I will generally default to a policy-maker standpoint. I very much appreciate a good wrap-up at the end, in either of those formats.

As far as specific arguments/lines in CX/Policy Debate, I only have a few particulars.

I categorically reject the argument that no new arguments should be allowed in the 2NC. That is the negative's right under the format and rules, and has been for 50 years.

I tend to have a very high threshold for Topicality. Generally speaking, unless a 1AC is clearly unreasonable and outside of the topic area, I probably won't give a Neg ballot on that basis. If you're making the argument for strategic reasons I get that, but I probably won't vote on that basis unless the 1AC is pretty egregious.

Likewise, I tend not to buy most arguments that lead to "the end of the world." In all of recorded history, literally nothing has ever led to humanity's extinction. The matter at hand in the round probably won't either, and overstating your argument so massively is rhetorically blustery.

Finally, as a stock issues/policy judge, I HATE kritikal theory arguments of any type. You’re not gonna win trying to tell me your opinions on Marx or Foucault or Derrida or Kendi. This is Policy Debate, not LD or philosophy club

I am a pretty basic judge. I like good arguments and good speaking. I prefer stock issues, but I know that I'm old fashioned and most students don't really do that anymore. Don't talk too fast, to the point where I can't understand you or am concerned about your health and safety. If you do so, I will put my pen down, and anything I don't write down didn't happen. Seriously, don't spread. As far as arguments go, I'm pretty good with anything. Don't just read a bunch of numbers or words and expect me to make the connections to your case or your opponent's. Explain why your statistics matter and why your arguments outweigh your opponent's. I also like the structure. Tell me you're on advantage 1, or you're covering inherency, etc. It really helps. Otherwise, I'm just here to listen to what you have to tell me.

I believe in a debate that relies more on content than it does flashy tactics. Being able to think and respond appropriately, while picking up on the little details of the opposition's case so that those errors/flaws/vagueness can be countered is the sign of a proficient debater.

Spreading is impressive, but only if it is understandable, precise and has the markers that make the case easy to follow. Trying to confuse your opponent doesn't help if it makes the judge unclear about your stance.

Please present your case with confidence. Please present your case with confidence. Please present your case with confidence.

Also, don't apologize. Present your case with confidence.

Part of debate is acting. Know your role and don't break it. I tend to lean towards cases that are presented with individuality and some sort of distinction from the rest of the debaters who have their noses in their cases. Have a personality. Be confident. And for the love of Bob, DO NOT treat your opponent as if they are subhuman in comparison with you. A haughty attitude doesn't prove you're superior in a debate any more than playing with a slug makes you the owner of a flea circus. Please know the difference in confidence and cockiness.