Harkins,+Matt

Matt Harkins If you have any questions or want to add me to an email chain, I'm at mpharks@gmail.com.I coach for Cathedral Prep and the Naval Academy. I debated on the national circuit in high school, but didn’t debate in college. Most of my research and coaching is geared toward the K. I can say that based on comparisons to other judges in panels I’ve been on, I value speaking clarity more than most.

I'm evaluating the debate and its arguments and evidence as it unfolds. I usually follow along on the speech document, but I also care about being about to hear you speak clearly the body of a card. If it seems like there's a clear decision at the conclusion of the 2ar, I try to find the best possible ballot for the team that I thought didn't win. If, in this process, I recognize the debate is more complicated than it seems, then I try to distill the debate into several questions in a logical order of importance. If the arguments made by the debaters don't resolve themselves simply, I try to find "even if" statements and arguments which operate at a higher level of abstraction than their counterpoints to resolve the question. In the absence of any of that kind of analysis, I'll check to see if the evidence resolves the clash. When a decision necessitates that I intervene in some arbitrary way, I try to fall back on simplicity, but I'm always self-conscious and try to avoid making an "easy" or "lazy" decision.
 * How I render a decision...**

In spite of the above, decisions aren't this complicated most of the time. I prefer not to reconstruct debates if it's not necessary.

- I'm not in touch with community consensus so you might be able to use that to your advantage. - Debating in the Pennsylvania has given me a comprehensive understanding of inherency as a procedural argument if you want to go there.
 * Topicality**

- I evaluate the link first, and I think it's a yes/no question which controls the direction of uniqueness. - Most of the best answers to politics disads I've seen aren't necessarily carded answers to the U/L/IL/I parts of a disad, but arguments about the nonsensical nature of certain parts of the politics disad as applied to the aff. - Although I don't cut politics files, I'm extremely aware of what's going on and familiar with who's writing what about Congress and the White House. I used to want to be a political journalist and old Twitter habits die hard. - I really like impact turns in general.
 * Disads**

- I won't kick the counterplan for the negative unless the negative persuades me to do otherwise.
 * Counterplans**

- I’m more familiar with psychoanalysis and Marxism than other theoretical disciplines. - I first look at role of the ballot/role of the judge arguments when I'm rendering a decision, so these arguments tend to have a strong effect on the outcome of a debate. - Make sure you read and comprehend the literature you're deploying, and don’t assume I’ve read and comprehend the literature you’re deploying. - I'm willing to stop the debate and give someone a loss for using flagrantly inappropriate language.
 * Kritiks**

- Reject the argument is the default. Spend time on the impact level to convince me to reject the team. - I heard recently that nobody votes on multiple conditional worlds bad anymore. I guess that means I'd be more willing to entertain this argument than the average judge. - Framework probably isn't your best strategic choice in front of me, but don’t be afraid to pick whatever you think would make for the most clash-filled debate.
 * Theory**

- Don't get the wrong impression from this *very serious* judge philosophy. I enjoy humor a lot. - I appreciate it when a debater is creative and tries to relate to me rather than debating like a computer and into their computer.
 * Style**