Aks,+Matt

I graduated from Scarsdale High School (NY) in 2007 and have taught at VBI@LMU.

My general feeling is that the judge should intrude on the round as little as possible. Debaters should do what they are most comfortable doing, and trust that I will do my best to follow how they frame the round on both the procedural and substantive levels. A few notes/caveats:

-I reserve the right to determine if an argument is missing a necessary structural component (link, warrant, impact) and to ignore the argument, even if it is cleanly extended. Ideally, a debater points out the incompleteness of an argument, but even if this doesn’t happen, I still retain some discretion.

-Both sides should have to win offense to win the round (or win 100% defense and win a presumption debate). I don’t enter the round presuming aff or neg, so definitely make sure you’re doing what’s necessary to complete my decision calculus.

-I rarely used theory as a debater and when I did it was almost always for defensive purposes. I harbor some bias against theory arguments and will evaluate them with an inevitable level of skepticism (and probably ineffectiveness). That being said, if you think your abuse story is compelling, I’ll at least listen to it.

-I will buy almost any coherent response against arguments that a) the resolution is tautological/nonsensical or b) the resolution’s evaluative term (i.e. just, moral) is unverifiable or hopelessly indeterminate. I would appreciate if these arguments were not made in the first place.

-Speed is OK, but if it’s forcing you to sacrifice clarity or substance, it’s not worth it. I will ignore arguments I consider “blips.” -If intervention becomes necessary, I will probably be biased in favor of the debater whose position is more substantively developed.