Kenyon,+Matt

Updated October 2016 China topic I coached a competitive national circuit policy team (SFL) for 5 years ending in 2012. we did mostly heg good, all the time. I do non-debate stuff for money now and judge/coach for schools smart enough to hire someone as sweet as me whenever I get the chance, which is not very often. Since I don't actively coach anymore I am much less familiar with the topic specific literature, acronyms, and other general established "norms" established at camp/early in the season. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing as I will be able to provide a fresh set of eyes and ears for your arguments, just make sure you are presenting them clearly and explaining them in rebuttals. I tend to err on the side of not calling cards unless they are specifically flagged and/or questioned in the late rebuttals. Unless the round is very very close (usually very good or very bad), I tend to have my decision made by the end of the 2AR with just a couple things to double check and confirm on my flow. I take judging each round very seriously, I try to let the debaters do all the work and the sooner I can accurately determine a winner, the less chance I start inadvertently interjecting my own thoughts and biases onto the flow.
 * __General/Who is this guy?__**

__**Speed**__ I have been forced to change my paradigm regarding speed because most debaters think they are much more clear than they really are. If you read what I said above, I would prefer to be able to understand every single word in the round, so as not to have to ever call a card and take the round out of the debater's hands. More often than not though, its closer to 50% and unfortunately this percentage often decreases as the technical proficiency of the debaters increases which makes things even more difficult. In the past I have just given teams credit for their explanations/extensions in the last few rebuttals because most of the constructives were a mess but I dont think that's fair to the teams that do make an effort to be clear in constructives. This does not mean I am a "lay" or "speaking skills" judge, it just means I am going to give more credit to the team(s) that are able to convey their 5 off and case strategy clearly before the last ten minutes of the debate. I am especially irritable regarding clarity when it comes to topicality and theory, they are fairly intricate issues and should be treated as such. In terms of a general number ranking I would say you can go 6-8 out of 10 on everything except T and theory where you should be closer to a 5


 * __Specifics:__**

I am a big fan of using T to prove abuse elsewhere on the flow, if the aff case manages to avoid most of your off case arguments or they are squirreling out of a bunch of on case arguments I really like to see a well articulated T violation explaining exactly what is happening and why that is detrimental to not only the round but debate in general. I think far too many debaters are bad T debaters and don't even know it. In order to really convince me on T it usually is going to take 5 minuntes in the 1NR as well as 5 in the 2NR, with that said, if you make that kind of time commitment and aren't a complete moron you should be winning the T debate. I view T in a competing interpertations framework and really look to specific analysis on the standards debate as to why your interp is best for limits ground etc. and more importantly, why the other team's is bad and doesn't meet any of the standards set up in the round. I don't think T is an RVI unless a team runs like 5 of them and then kicks them all with no strategic reason for doing so (ie proving abuse or garnering a link on another flow). Much more strategic would be reading an add-on card as a we meet on a silly time suck T and then BAM, free advantage and free speaker points!
 * __Topicality__**

K's are fine by me. I would prefer you actually have some harmony between your K and the rest of your arguments, if you even have any (which I would prefer be kept to a minimum). Anything less than that is you just running an non-unique DA, which I remember when evaluating the inevitable perm debate. In terms of "performance" type arguments, (both aff and neg) I will say, I once had no idea how to properly evaluate a round or the arguments being presented and had a negative bias against them. Prolonged friendship with some coaches/debaters at the forefront of some of these types of arguments has made me much more educated. If you do cool stuff that you actually believe in, feel free to pref me, just make sure you believe. I find in HS clash of civ debates the K side loses my ballot most often when they lose/drop a few critical (no pun intended) issues on the flow proper and the policy team uses these to frame the debate in a way that makes it impossible to win for the "K" team. I rarely view framework as a reason to reject or exclude an argument or team, MUCH more often (99%) it is used as an impact framing device as the round comes to an end. So that means even if you "win" framework, you still need to win an impact (of whatever type) that outweighs whatever they have going on that operates in your framework. That means you can also "lose" framework and win the round by winning the debate in terms of their framework. Something to think about if you are short on time and/or want to go all in sometime during the middle of the round and the framework debate is cumbersome.
 * __K/Performance/Framework__**

Although I think generic cps are the lazy debaters best friend (along with Ks) well researched and specific CPs are a wonderful tool the negative can use to moot most of the aff case. I think they skew competitive equity towards the neg a bit but I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily. One side is bound to have an advantage and if the Neg is putting in work on specific CPs for specific cases they should be rewarded. As far as theory goes, i'm really a blank slate, I'll listen to any argument aff or neg and decide it in the round, I don't have any predisposition towards or against things like topical CPs, PICs, etc so feel free to hash it out in the round. I do think that it really helps to have specific solvency advocates for your CP because the AFF almost always has one for plan so that is a built in solvency deficit that every neg must overcome (please say/use this affs). Disads being run on CPs seem to be a lost art and I love them, I understand the time crunch for the aff makes them difficult but when done well they are a very powerful weapon in the aff arsenal
 * __CPs__**

For me this is the meat and potatoes of debate, a good disad debater is a true gem and a joy to watch for me. This doesn't mean shelling out 6 generic disads and never explaining one, this means knowing your scenario better than anyone on the planet, including your authors and painting a picture. Overviews in the block are great and can really tie a story together. I'm not a huge fan of politics only because I think they are lazy debating and I despise that, not to mention it's a stupid interpertation of fiat and the links stories are often very iffy at best. As with everything else I don't like, I vote on Ptx quite a bit and certainly don't reject them on face but bottom of the docket and theory saying Ptx Disads are illegit are pretty convincing args for me. Multiple link levels and strategic impacts are a treat. Basically, I like teams that work hard and you can tell when this happens, specifically on a disad. My favorite type of round to watch is one with a Disad and some case in the 2NC and T in the 1NR (or just disad in the 2NC and case in the 1NR if they are T) This really allows great argument development and I really get to see who the better debaters are, not just the team that can read the fastest or has the most arguments the other team has never heard of
 * __DA's__**

If a case is really not inherent feel free to run inherency on it but if you want to win on it you better be spending a lot of time and telling me why this matters (ie you can't run any disads or case turns) I envision an inhereny debate setting up like a T debate with the neg presenting their interpertation of what inherency is, the violation (evidence) standards and some voters, that's my inherency schpeel, feel free to call me a moron and strike me now! Case debate was the part of debate I loved as a coach. Case specific cards and a strong, mine loaded 1NC followed by a soul crushing block on case is one of the greatest joys in debate to behold, also one of the most rare. I have and will vote on strictly defense and an explanation of why presumption means I should vote neg. Actually, please make me do that! I worked my ass of when I was in debate and expect that of teams that want a win and high speaks from me. That's the type of rounds I like to hear, ones in which it's clear that both teams have put in the necessary work to be good at the activity that I enjoy so much, no matter what you run please develop it and impact it out, tell me why I should be voting for you and do some big picture analysis. Above all, have fun, enjoy yourself and do what you do
 * __Case__**
 * __In Summary__**

__**P.S.**__ I look like I'm 14, I get it. Please try your best not to ask me if I am one of the debaters you will be competing against, just for my pride's sake.