Gillespie,+Matthew+(updated)

22 April 2015

**This is the most recent paradigm for Matthew Gillespie and supersedes all previous dated or undated paradigms. The old paradigm cannot be removed as I no longer have access to my old email address.**

Your job as a debater is to persuade me. It's not to prove your point; it's not to destroy your opponent's case; it's not even to win. It is to persuade me. This requires the total package, appealing not only to my reason, but also to my sense of right and wrong, my emotions, and the common ground between us. Anything less than this does not cut it. I usually keep a rigorous flow, but I can guarantee I will also base my decision on more than just the flow. Your speaker points will reflect your effective use of all aspects of persuasive discourse. I also value adaptability. I am not favorably impressed by debaters who run what they like, and disregard the judge. If I feel ignored as the judge, I reserve the right to ignore you.
 * In general: **


 * A few specifics on content: **

I'm fine with any style of case construction, as long as it is well-explained. Value and Criterion/Standard, while the norm, are not necessarily required. However, I am mightily turned off by debaters who grudgingly twist their favorite case to fit the topic, or who ignore the topic altogether. My experience as an educator shows me that students who actually discuss the topic are more persuasive, engaging, and successful in life than those who run nothing but offs.
 * Cases: **

If you throw a card at me, please explain why you read it. Why does it matter? The fact that you read something you printed from the internet, quoted from someone I've never heard of, means precisely squat. You might understand it and your opponent might understand it, but if you do not explain it in a way that is accessible and relevant, it is useless.
 * Cards: **

If you state something as a fact, but any person with two brain cells to rub together would know it to be false, I will take that into consideration, even if your opponent does not point it out. Have a little respect for the intelligence of your audience.
 * Facts: **

When you provide impacts, they should link clearly, and be well-explained and absolutely credible. Please, minimize squirrel cases and implausible claims. Let's keep things real. Also (and this is very important), if you open the round to the real-world impacts of what happens //in that round//, you must be willing to take responsibility for //all// of the real world impacts of that round, including those relating to the judge's experience in the round. From the perspective of the judge, the effect of your words on the judge are the most immediate and affecting impacts of that round. You cannot pick and choose.
 * Impacts: **

I am fine with kritikal debate, as long as it furthers the discussion of the topic. Kritiks for the sake of kritiks is boring and self indulgent.
 * Kritiks:**

Please don't tell me what my role is. Determining that is //my// prerogative, not yours.
 * Role of the ballot / role of the judge:**

Total bollocks.
 * RVI:**

If you run theory, it must be in response to actual abuse. I will not consider any theory in the AC.
 * Theory:**


 * A few specifics on presentation: **

Again, I highly value eloquence. Eloquence is impossible above 300 wpm. Please give your speech more meaning than just the words. I can listen quite quickly, but if I can't understand it, either through lack of diction, or lack of sufficient explanation, I don't flow it. I will only call "clear" 3 times.
 * Speed: **

Please don't yell at me. I have abnormally sensitive hearing.
 * Volume: **

Please be polite, allowing your opponent to answer your questions, and answering theirs succinctly.
 * Cross-ex: **

Background: Degrees in philosophy and logic from Boston University, Université Stendahl, and the Sorbonne. Currently Director of Debate. I am also a trained gemologist, genealogist, proofreader and enjoy a host of other occupations. Promethean.