Tkachuk,+Matthew

I am a traditional LD judge, as oppose to a converted policy judge.

I prefer a thoughtful and substantive values framework. If there is a meaningful distinction between your opponent's value and your own, even if you are both calling it the same thing, be sure to clarify. As always, be sure to impact your arguments back to the framework, with strong links and appropriate weighing. As for your selection of values, I will take issue if you choose a value that disrespects human worth (e.g. forced population control, Malthusian philosophy).
 * Values**

I flow extensively, assuming everything you say has a strategic purpose. That said, I try very hard to catch your arguments during your constructive. If I don't understand or remember your argument from your constructive, I will not let you extend it through- that would be holding your opponent to a standard I didn't meet myself. Be clear and aim for a fast conversational speed. Don't re-interpret or change arguments as the round progresses. I will also use a judgment of proportionality when it comes to time spent on arguments: if you spread and read through many different points quickly, I will not expect more than a small response to each of your points; I will spend more time evaluating what you and your opponent choose to talk about the most. Be sure to respond to your opponent's main arguments and rebuttal points; if you don't, and your opponent extends, I will assume you intentionally avoided responding because you didn't have a good answer.
 * Speed and Extensions**

I give more weight to analytical arguments. For any statistics or author-specific analysis, be sure to have appropriate documentation and background information. As for carded evidence, be sure that you include the reasoning of the author. If your case is highly specific to a particular region or set of circumstances, this places a larger burden on your opponent-- I will be inclined to be satisfied with your opponent if he or she makes thoughtful analytical responses, even in the absence of cards.
 * Evidence**

Arguments not introduced in opening speeches won't be counted. I write this only to give you peace of mind in case your opponent does this to you in their 2AR, or in the 2NR for that matter.
 * New Arguments**

I am reluctant to vote off theory arguments, especially if it is just thrown in there as one of the other arguments. You may persuade me to if you can convince me the violation is serious.
 * Theory**

I will not vote on any argument that is not linked to the standard being won in the round. That said, having this in your case makes me wonder how confident you are in your values. It would be better to save these arguments for turns.
 * Off-Case Positions**

On the Ballot
I will make every effort to write a legible ballot that is thorough, while devoid of extraneous comments. When possible, I will make separate comments for the AFF and NEG along with a reason for decision; however, when both debaters are polished, I will often not leave separate comments. Because of time constraints, I may not be able to talk about the decision, especially in flight A. If there is time, especially in flight B rounds, I will be happy to say more. Feel free to approach me after rounds if you would like to talk.
 * RFDs**

-- --
 * Speaker Points**
 * 30:** You demonstrate utter control of the round: your presentation is smooth and easy to follow; you are gracious by stating your opponent's arguments respectfully; your synthesis of the round is perceptive; you make substantive arguments in rebuttals; your logic is consistent; you treat words and ideas with a high degree of reverence; your analysis is insightful and impressive; you have modeled the ideal debater- other debaters should watch you in action.
 * 27:** You have all the mechanics of a competent debater in your division.
 * 25:** You have made one or more of the following mistakes: you are difficult to understand; you misinterpret your opponent's arguments to gain an unfair advantage; you don't seem to understand your own case position well; you continue significantly beyond your allotted speech time without minding my hand signals; you make new arguments in later speeches hoping I won't notice.
 * 24:** You do something offensive, which I will note on the ballot.

//I will update this page to include more details as I am able.//