Matthews,+Nick

Nick's LD Paradigm


 * Name:** Nick Matthews
 * Email**: the09hutt[at]gmail[dot]com
 * School Strikes:** CK McClatchy, Oxford Academy
 * Rounds** judged on this year's policy topic: 0

If you are filling out a pref sheet, please pay particular attention to my thoughts regarding speed.

===**Condensed paradigm **: ===


 * I default to the role of the policymaker. The affirmative team should win if the world of the plan is demonstrated as superior to the world of the status quo or a competitive policy option. The negative should win if the world of the status status quo or a competitive policy option is demonstrated as superior to the world of the plan. This is not an immutable standard. Feel free to argue that I should approach the round through some alternate means of evaluation. While I do have biases, as noted below, I am open to pretty much any argument you wish to present, so long as it is sufficiently explained and warranted.
 * Please do not spread at national circuit speeds in front of me. I have a significant hearing impairment that makes understanding you a challenge to begin with. You can spread only if you give me a complete, sequenced copy of your speech document before every speech.
 * The affirmative team should defend an advocacy statement with a clear text. If it relates to the topic, fantastic!
 * I enjoy listening to negative strategies that incorporate a strong counterplan and net benefit(s)—with specific links to the 1AC—and, where applicable, a nuanced discussion of the case. This is an ideal, not a requirement. Do not let it prevent you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but note that my understanding of straight-up debate is a lot stronger than my understanding of kritiks.
 * Two conditional negative advocacies plus the status quo is probably legitimate. Theory is //most often// a reason to reject the argument, not the team.
 * The term "potential abuse" is not persuasive to me.
 * Strong comparative impact analysis will be highly beneficial for the team(s) that employ it.

Full paradigm:
__**Experience**__: I competed at CK McClatchy High School in Sacramento, California for four years. My senior year I was our team's captain and competed at CHSSA, NCFL, and NFL. While I was decent locally and cleared at most tournaments, I did not have the opportunity to debate extensively on the national circuit. In college, I did four years of NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate at UCLA, and I cleared at NPTE in both 2012 and 2013. In my current life, I am a second year graduate assistant and debate coach at CSU Long Beach.

__**In General**__: True tech > tech > truth. I suspect that I tend to be somewhat more holistic than other judges in my evaluation of debates. Yes, the line-by-line matters, but at the end of the day, your best shot is to identify the big picture issues in the round and milk 'em for all they're worth. I prefer rebuttals that collapse to a few key questions as opposed to spamming the flow and hoping something sticks. Your goal should be to write my ballot.

__**Speed:**__ I have a substantial hearing impairment. Paperless teams should provide me a speech document with the highlighted text of the blocks and cards that they plan to read prior to each speech, in sequential order. If you do this, I won't have a problem following along if you spread when reading evidence or shells, since I can just read what you are saying. I will provide my own viewing computer. However, you should slow down **significantly** in rebuttal speeches and when making analytical arguments.

__**Substance**__:

Advantages/Disadvantages - I value specificity at the link level. I also value impact scenarios that are intuitive and complete, in the sense that your overall story does not contain obvious missing elements. For example, if you read evidence indicating that X causes //US// economic collapse, and that //global// economic collapse causes war, then I expect you to read evidence indicating that the US economy is key to the global economy in that same speech. No, not the next speech, THAT speech. This is elementary. I do not understand why certain teams feel the need to take shortcuts; please do not do so in front of me. I also think that many debaters misunderstand what the term "risk" means; risk should only ever be articulated in reference to probabiltiy analysis and //never// as a response to link defense. In other words, I find claims along the lines of "there's always a one percent risk that we solve the impact" to be extremely uncompelling, particularly if your link story is tenuous. Your ability to access offense on the flow is conditioned first and foremost on your ability to answer arguments that dispute the logic of your scenarios. I am more than willing to evaluate terminal defense that is conceded, true, and/or intuitively persuasive as an absolute takeout if the argument is conveyed as such.

Counterplans - Not a huge fan of process counterplans like delay and consultation, but I am not totally opposed to evaluating them. I really like specific PICs and other counterplans that indicate substantial critical thinking and research on the part of the negative. Affirmative permutations should have a coherent 10 or 15-second explanation in the 2AC. Please do not launch a barrage of three-word subpoints that I can barely flow and expect me to give you any leeway in the rebuttals. If your counterplan text is particularly long, please give me a copy of it so I can flow it accurately. (Same goes for plan texts).

K - My firsthand experience with running the the K is limited, and I do not make any effort to stay current on the latest literature. If you're running something weird or complicated and you don't hold me by the hand throughout the round, don't complain if the result is not satisfactory to you. Also, if assaulting me with a slew of enigmatical yet meaningless buzzwords is your idea of a good K debate (*cough* D&G *cough cough*), I suggest leaving that particular expando in the tub. Quality impact turns are probably fun. If you are aff, please focus more of your energies on the alt debate. Frankly, I think many K alternatives are either 1) taken completely out of context, or 2) utter gibberish. Rare is the 2AC who is bold enough to call the neg out on this.

T - If you are unable to impact, compare, and weigh standards and voters, you will not do well here. If you tell me to default to "reasonability" without articulating what that means, I will laugh at you. I am not impressed by your 15 second timesuck. "Spec" of any sort is a contradiction in terms. Topicality is not genocide. Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

Theory - Two conditional advocacies plus the status quo is probably okay. Whoever initiates the theory debate has the burden to prove that I should reject the team and not the argument. There had better be obvious in-round abuse if you want me to pull the trigger.

Impact calculus - a must. C//omparative// impact calculus can greatly enhance your chances of winning the round. Do not just tell me that you have X impact with Y timeframe and Z probability. Tell me how your impact(s) interact with your opponents'. Give me warrants for why your scenarios are uniquely more probable/timely/larger. Explain how turns and defense should come into play. Debate is not just an examination of which arguments are correct, but is also an examination of which arguments actually matter. Invest your time heavily here.

__**Miscellaneous stuff**__:


 * I don't care whether you sit or stand, but I want to see your face when you are speaking**. Not your eyes and your hair. Your //entire// face from the chin on up. Do not obstruct my line of sight with your laptop screen, your tub, or your evidence. Nor should you hunch over your evidence and stare at your podium/reading surface. Doing any of these things will reduce the quality of the voice you are projecting towards me and make it harder to understand what you are saying.


 * Paperless** - Prep stops when you remove your flash drive from your computer to give to the other team/viewing computer.


 * Speaker points**: I will try my best to assign speaker points in a manner consistent with tournament norms. I base speaks off of a combination of speech clarity, smart arguments and analysis, evidence quality, and strategic decisions. If you do things that annoy me, your speaks are likely to be lower. I'm definitely not a points fairy. My scale usually looks like: poor = 25-26.5, below average = 26.5-27, average = 27-27.5, above average = 27.5-28, early elim caliber = 28-28.5, deep elim caliber = 28.5-29.5, anything above that, you are probably TOC elim caliber and slapping your opponents around with their own evidence. 30s are for speeches that would require no changes in a redo—haven't seen one yet, but you never know. I reserve 25s and under for 1) incomprehensible speakers, 2) blatant cheaters, 3) debaters who believe themselves to be master jerks of the known galaxy. If you are a combination of all three, congratulations, you possess an exceedingly rare gift and will be rewarded with zero speaker points. You also might find that debaters who pay attention to my philosophy and adapt to my preferences tend to score better speaks. Usage of carefully-selected sports references and internet memes will likely garner bonus points.


 * Questions? Ask.**

WebRep

currentVote

noRating noWeight