McLoon,+Matt

Matt McLoon Notre Dame High School Policy - 4 years. Pepperdine Debate - 2 years.

Debate is one of the best games in the world, there is nothing quite like it. I have some personal observations and preferences that make the game more enjoyable for myself.

1. Be Clear: I have no trouble flowing the spread but while the activity favors a healthy amount of arguments being thrown down during your speech time, I am going to need some serious clarity when you are reading tags, Cp texts, making permutations, making some important analytical arguments (Trying to point out a double turn for example) - I'd recommend you slow down and make it known. Strategically that sounds like bad news if you are hoping your opponent does not pick up on it and makes that awesome drop you are looking for, but I want to hear the text and I know pretty much all judges appreciate that if you have an important argument, take a deep breath and explain it out. Obviously the rebuttals are the best place to do this, but Clarity clarity clarity is essential in your constructive. Some ways to get speaker points is to look up and talk to me (eye contact is a plus unless you find me hideous).

2. Depth Before Breadth: I'm more likely to vote on arguments that are really well explained and have great prominence in the debate rather than voting on ASPEC that is read for less than half a minute. If you really want to go for a short procedural, mini kritik, you read on case - I want to see some explanation and extrapolation. The debate round in itself is a discussion and spiking out of that discussion between competing views on arguments to go for something that does not necessarily have an involvement in this discussion, I'm going to need to be heavily persuaded to vote on it. I have nothing against going for techy arguments, theory, procedurals, etc, But I want to hear some explanation and just saying this is a voting issue for fairness will not usually cut it for me.

3. Make sure you have X's and O's (Offense and Defense) Defense wins championships and if its pretty good and overwhelming defense, it might win you a position in my book. Obviously I want to see offense in the debate as well but make sure you are consolidating and going for your best arguments in the rebuttals.

4. Have good evidence and wield it wisely. If you are relying on some evidence that isn't that great and really doesn't back up the claim sufficiently with a decent warrant, I'm going to do discredit it and I will have no problem doing so. If you have some really solid evidence use it and explain it to me. I'm not afraid to read cards at the end of the round but great debates and speaker point boosts occur when someone has a quality piece of evidence that they back up and explain well. Do some evidence comparison as well!

Arguments:

T - A negative includes a topicality argument in their strategy if they believe the Affs interpretation of the resolution is one that is uniquely abusive to a negative strategy. I believe T is a matter of competing interpretations but the Negative must go beyond winning that they have superior interpretation. Prove contextual abuse both in round and potential. I also want to have voters and standards well impacted out. Just because the Affs interpretation damages things like education, predictability, etc does not mean I should care. Explain to me the importance of these things and the importance of the voting issues in relation to the resolution. Aff's might get by with some reasonability arguments if they assert them properly and dont get caught in too much debate jargon, because I probably won't care at that point. Use an effective counter interp and some great reasons why your interp of the resolution is a fair one.

CP - CP Theory breaks down like this: Prove to me that you are philosophically/textually competitive (Your CP is not mutually exclusive) and then we'll talk. If you get past that barrier my views on CP theory is that you need to prove that the CP to a judge has some opportunity cost versus doing the plan, Theory is used to reject the argument not the team usually in my book, prove to me otherwise and I might listen but that is my default, and if there is a ridiculous use of fiat, I might be left wondering if I have the capacity to allow such actions to occur.

Kritiks - Kritiks are cool in my book, you need to establish a framework most likely and really keep things clear and coherent. If this is a kritik I am not familiar with (Something obscure most likely), I will appreciate some adequate explanation. While I might have a pretty good knowledge on what the popular kritik authors say, their arguments are spun differently on topics and debaters should not always operate under the default opinion that the judge is going to pick up on it and easily go with it. I like alternatives, or else your k is a linear disad and unless you do a great job impacting it out to turn case, i might have some trouble voting for you. If you want to perform, go for it but be specific and be clear about your intentions with it.

Impact Calculus: Please do this. Please. At the end of the round I want some weighing, so pull out the scale and tell me which way it is tipping and why. I will give good speaks to those who reward me with a tale of two impacts or worlds story at the end.

At the end of the round, don't keep your pearls covered in mud, I really don't want to dig around for the round winners unless i absolutely have to. Go for the essential arguments, extend the necessary offense and defense, and execute your plan from before you entered the room.

More importantly have fun! This is one of the best activities I have been involved with and win or lose, you are getting some serious benefits out of the debate community.