Lindsay,+Matt

Matt Lindsay School Affiliation: None Previous Schools: Grapevine High School, Northwestern University, University of Miami Number of Rounds on Topic: 0

I've been out of the activity since 2006 and was marginally (at most) involved with the University of Miami in 2005 and 2006. As such, I am somewhat unaware of any emerging trends in the activity. I did some high school coaching and judging when I was an undergrad.

I don't believe I have any specific predispositions for or against certain arguments, just a preference for well thought-out arguments. Generic assertions probably won't get you very far with me, and just because you read evidence against an analytical argument does not mean I will preference the evidence unless you give me a reason to do so. I don't generally like to have to read a lot of evidence after a debate, but sometimes it is necessary and having do read a lot of evidence does not inherently indicate a poor quality round. Additionally, mere extension of a dropped argument does not entitle you to the win unless you give me a reason it does. I'm open about most stratetgic choices made by the teams, just be prepared to defend what you choose.

As I have been out of the activity for a couple years, my flow may not be at its best. I will try and communicate to you if I am having difficulty, but if you spew down 25 analytics in a row I will likely miss several of them and won't feel bad about it.

Topicality: No problems with this argument, however, there are a couple caveats. Unless you are the most gifted and persuasive speaker of all time, there is very very little chance of winning on a reverse voting issue on topicality. Less extreme, but likely more important, topicality is not automatically a voting issue. If you win the aff is not topical, but fail to explain why that is bad, or if the aff explains how they still solve your ultimate topicality impact (fairness, education, etc.), you will likely lose. I like T debates that explain the competing interpretations between the aff and the neg and why the neg interp should be preferred and the aff interp is somehow harmful. As a result, you are unlikely to win my ballot on T without devoting some time to it.

Critiques: Philosophy major in college and debated critiques a fair amount of the time. Try to keep up somewhat with the philosophical literature, but don't have as much spare time as I used to. I don't need a "concrete" alternative but you better be able to explain why rejecting or doing nothing is preferable to signing the ballot AFF. Explanations of how the plan specifically engages in the methodology in question and specific negative implications that subsequently arise are appreciated.

Theory: Open to most theory-based arguments, though the burden of proof is generally higher than it is for other arguments: Northwestern mentality must have rubbed off. Helpful to be able to demonstrate specific instances of abuse that your team has suffered, general whines about PICs or conditionality. Discourse arguments are likely the most difficult to win (other than RVIs) in front of me, though I can be compelled to vote for them. If it comes down to it, I will and have pulled the trigger on presumption.

Other: No problems with the disas/counter-plan approach or a big case debate, though I do generally believe there can be such a thing as "zero risk" and that going for the counter-plan means that presumption shifts to the aff. Again, the more specific your explanantions and impact calculations are, the more likely I will vote for you. While civil debates are generally more enjoyable for all parties involved, I have a fairly high threshold for offensive/overly obnoxious conduct in debate rounds.

Any other questions, ask me.