Experience: 

Policy Coach @ Ralston High School

3 years policy debate @ Millard West High School (2007-2010)

State Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

Nebraska North District Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

General: Debate the arguments that you enjoy and debate them well. Speed & tag-team cross-ex are fine.

Argument Preferences:

Affirmative: Engage with the topic. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to be "topical."

Disads: Run good internal links and be able to explain them.

Kritiks: Don't link to your own discourse links, I'm willing to vote you down on perf-con. Author experience with Heidegger, Foucault, Baudrillard, Camus. Links of omission are rarely good. 

T/FW: High threshold for developing procedural arguments. I really like them, and happy to vote on them, but both teams need to put in the time to address the nuances of the argument. Won't vote on undeveloped Role-of-the-ballot arguments.

College Policy: Emporia (2012) + KCKCC (2013-'15) | Sems Of CEDA, Doubles At NDT, Won NPDA (2015), Attended Weber Round Robin (2014) and Kentucky RR (2012).

High School Policy: 2009-'12 @ Millard South | 3 TOC Bids, Sems at Berkley, Won NE State CX (2012).

---->
I was primarily a Kritik debater in high school and a Performance/Method debater in college.

No matter the form or content that you are presenting, there are disads, permutations, impact turns, links, no-links, internal links, framework, topicality, sequencing, evidence comparison, and all that jazz to be had.

I am most comfortable in a Clash Of Civilizations (Traditional Vs. K) or K Vs. K debate, but I am open to adjudicating outside of my comfort zone, weighing all kinds of arguments, barring horrendous ones.

I find myself voting on framing, impacts, and internal links as a default. Clash - or contrast - matters.

I love unique spins on resolutions and flipping the script on debate conventions (be unique) while also *using* debate conventions (offense vs. defense, evidence, claim + warrant, comparisons, ethos/pathos/logos).

I have judged over a decade of LD (and even PF) at this point but it is still not my forte. Your jargon, or even how you view the debate in front of us, may be lost on me at times. Assume the worst and hedge, and we can get back on track.

For all debate styles: A good speech is a good speech, a great speech is an art form, and the epic totality of all your speeches should feel fresh, immersive, and have levels to it.

By the end of the debate, it's helpful for me if you emphasize clarity and substance above over-extending yourself on the flow, though you should 100% cover what you need on each flow.

Examples rock. Paint a picture. I'm a visual learner who benefits from repetition.

Show me the debater you are, and I will do due diligence to adapt. Play to your strengths.

Truth over tech (the line-by-line), but tech still matters greatly unless and until a cluster of arguments is formed and won that sets and sways the rhythm, tone, and flow of the debate.

Extend your arguments and evidence, not just your taglines, authors, and dates. Address when your opponent does the bare minimum.

I find that some teams don't capitalize enough on concessions or "moments" in debates, or they do so in a way that is merely surface-level. Use it to frame them out of the debate. Go all in (your mileage may vary).

Interact with the crux of their arguments - the best version of what they are saying - directly on the line-by-line and put offense and defense on the flow. Tilt the scales every chance you get. Control the line-by-line.

I try to flow cross-ex, but no guarantees. This is typically my favorite part of the debate.

Speed is fine. Whether it's good for your precise, situationally-dependent speech, or even just the point you are on, is an entirely other thing.

Clarity over speed, always. Especially for the last 3 speeches.

Seriously, slow down on taglines and analytics. Time constraints? I would rather you be strategic with your time than speed/throw everything at the wall, with the risk that little, if any, of it sticks.

I reward debaters via speaks when they a) start their rebuttal speeches with (valuable) overviews, b) take risks (bonus points when they pay off), c) keep the flows in order or at least mitigate the chaos of a million tiny arguments, and d) have great cross-ex's and bring that same energy and clarity for speeches.

I will disclose speaks if asked.

Don't let the debate get close.

I find that strategic usage of time in rebuttals can make or break a ballot, so I might suggest taking a breath to emphasize key factors in your debate.

Don't out-spread yourself trying to out-spread the opponent. A few well-developed, top-level arguments are better than a few blippy, under-developed shadow-extensions. Take that extra second to strategize the big picture before you dive in.

Of course, you could convince me to defer against my default paradigm.

Role Of The Ballot (ROTB) debates are more than just a blip; I invite both teams to interact with framework arguments in a meaningful way because they become lenses for evaluating everyone's impacts organically.

Consider informing me what my ballot does, and how I should evaluate the debate in front of us. Help me feel it with the weight and rhythm of your arguments. Be proactive on this front.

I want to be able to use what you said in your last speech to genuinely help make my decision. Spend time on the arguments that you are legitimately going for.

Going too fast is just as bad as going too slow.

Yes, you can ask questions during prep.

Run your own prep time.

Email chain is preferred for sharing cards, and I do read the cards. I may ask for you to send all cards you go for in last rebuttal at end of debate.

Email: mattc743@gmail.com

Most of all, just try to have fun.

Liberty University '04-'08
Policy Debate Coach @ Theodore Roosevelt High School `14-`18

contact me via email at cpmccool at gmail dot com

Hello debaters, coaches, or other judges interested in my judge philosophy. I feel that the debate round is a unique environment where almost any argument can be utilized so long as it is justifiable. I say "almost any" because some arguments are highly suspect like "racism good" or "torture good". What I mean by "justifiable" is that the argument made, to me, becomes more persuasive when coupled with good evidence. What follows are my preferences on theory, Topicality, CPs, Kritiks/Performance, and Style.

Theory
I do not consider my mind to be tabula-rasa (i.e., blank slate). To me, the most persuasive theory arguments contain a claim, some support, and an impact. Just saying "voting issue" does not make it so - I need to be convinced that voting for your interpretation is justifiable, which means that I can cogently explain to the opposing team why they were deficient and should lose the round.

Topicality
See my comments on Theory. I like it when Neg can show that the Aff's interpretation is bad for debate. Like many other judges, I am annoyed by messy T debates. The side that clashes the most, organizes the T debate, and shows why their interpretation is better for debate will most likely win my ballot.

CPs
I am a huge fan of creative and competitive CPs. If Neg can give a couple of reasons why the CP solves better/faster than the Aff, I feel more comfortable finding that the net-benefit outweighs case. The perm is a test of competitiveness. I will not consider the perm a legitimate policy option unless there is some good evidence read to support it as such.

Kritiks/Performance
I think that Aff should have a written plan text, but does not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. Aff, if you think that USFG is bad, be ready to defend the theory onslaught by the Neg. I prefer the policy making framework, but understand the value of the K and Performance debate. The key for me is justification. Make sure you clash with opposing and show why voting for you is net-beneficial for debate.

Style
I do have some preferences regarding style that you should consider in order to obtain one or two extra speaker points from me: 1) Clarity outweighs speed - it's ok to spread your opponent, just make sure you pick the arguments you are winning and go for them in the rebuttals 2) I lean negative - I believe that Aff must thoroughly defend the plan. My standard is that it should be more probable than not that the plan is a good idea in order to vote Aff. 3) Civility and charm go further for me than pretension and hate. Being classy and focusing on the arguments and generally making everyone feel good during round are skills that are valuable and actually useful in the real world. 4) Have fun and enjoy this amazing sport! Energy can be communicated through your arguments and when it does, it makes me want to listen.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language.

General: Please respect me by not using graphic descriptions of violence or abuse in your argumentation - if you have a question about this I’m willing to talk to you before round. I will not vote for what I feel are morally repugnant arguments like “racism good,” “torture good,” or “death good.” Do not take me or my ballot hostage. Do not argue for a double loss or a double win.

Speed: I’d prefer you go slowly. Fewer cards often means more skill in argumentation.

LD and PF
I approach LD and PF rounds through the lens of policy debate. So LD or PF specific jargon, abbreviations, and tricks likely will not resonate with me. I want clear impacts and impact analysis. I do not like paraphrasing and I want clash. Lots of clash. I feel like at the end of a lot of rounds I've not be told how to weigh the two teams' impacts. So lots of clash is only good with lots of impact weighing. In LD, I generally do not know or understand your kritiks. So take the time to explain to me how your kritik interacts with your opponent’s case.

Policy Debate
I think policy debate is about whether or not the aff's plan/advocacy should happen.

Kritiks : I think that Affs should have a written advocacy statement, but they do not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. I prefer the policy making framework, but do have an appreciation for performance debate. Despite working for the NSDA, I think there are a lot of problems with debate as an activity/community. If you choose to kritik the institution of competitive debate, I appreciate arguments that are solutions-oriented.

Theory+ Topicality : I was a 2A so I have a residual aff bias when it comes to theory. For me to vote on T it must be proven that the aff’s interpretation is flawed and that abuse has happened in round. I have a hard time weighing different standards for theory and T - you need to do that work for me on the negative, if you don’t I will likely presume aff on T.

My Background
I work at the National Speech & Debate Association as the Leadership and Education Specialist. I have a theatre teaching degree, a master's in performance studies, and a master's degree in teaching English Language Learners. I am married to my former college teammate, Chase McCool, but we don't always agree on debate-things, so don't assume!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXDFaoEZsbc

2023 update: I have not judged in a couple years, so going a bit slower is best for me as well as explaining any jargon relevant to the topic.

email: gradywiedeman@gmail.com

I do not need to be on the email chain if it's an LD round, I would like to be on the email chain if it's a policy round. I have no preferences on standing/sitting.

Background: I debated for four years of policy debate (Norfolk, NE), debated NFA-LD for the University of Nebraska (2 years), and previously the policy coach at Lincoln High (NE).

Affirmative: Do what you want, I am not fundamentally opposed to nontraditional affirmatives.

Negative: Run what you feel comfortable with. I think playing to your strengths makes for a better and more exciting round. I am a sucker for theory debates but ultimately want to see what debate you enjoy.

Kritiks: The only particular I have is that the alternative needs to be explained well. If I don't understand your alternative, I'm going to have a hard time voting off it.

General: I try my best to vote based off of what I hear in round. I have particular opinions about debate, but I will do my best to judge based off the round rather than my own preferences. I prefer analysis over card dumping. The more contextualized analysis is usually the more compelling to me. In general, I like it when you're genuine with your arguments. I want you to like them and I want to be able to like them. You spent a lot of time cutting these positions, do them justice.

One thing I particularly don't like (and will have a hard time voting on) are quick and dirty theory shots to win the round. An example might be an observation that says you, by definition, win the round or something. If that's what you want me to vote on, a clean extension is not sufficient. You need to invest time into arguments that you want me to vote on, these observations/theory points included. I will not vote on a theory pot-shot that you put a combined 45 seconds into. I need analysis as to why you want me to vote on that thing.