Gayetsky,+Matt

Matt Gayetsky University of Pittsburgh When discussing my judging philosophy with people who don’t really know me, I typically get one of two responses. Either "I was concerned about our team running kritiks with you in the back of the room” or, "If we have you again, our strategy should be much more critical, right?" Neither assumption is correct. While in my own academic work I have a preference for the theoretical, I also end up being the person who volunteers to do politics updates. With this being the case, it is likely in your best interest to make arguments that you enjoy debating, and give me a compelling reason why this means that you win. Unless, of course, your argument is “persuasion bad,” in which case, I will try not to be persuaded. I think. Anyways -- here are a couple of things that I normally do when evaluating a round. Note that this is a "normally" and is by no means binding. If you tell me to do something else, I'll do it -- but if you don't, then this is what you get.

Theory/Topicality: On any theory argument, I think that it is the burden of the team who initiated the debate to decisively win the debate. What that means for you is I'm more likely to err aff on topicality and perms good, and more likely to err neg on conditionality good. This doesn't mean I won't vote the other way. However I should note that I've been judging, I have become more persuaded that conditionality is probably good for debate, and to win that conditionality is bad, you should probably couch your objections in specific scenarios of what the negative did to skew your strategy, rather than the potentiality of what abuse could have occurred.

Disad's/CP's/Case: I think that they are valuable negative tools. An oft made K aff argument that "There is no reason why the neg should get disad ground" is probably a bad argument. With that said, this is the bread and butter of typical debates. I tend to insist on clearer impact calculus than others. Don’t assume that “…and nuke war turns the case…” is sufficient analysis. I want you to extrapolate the warrants from your evidence to make your argument, and not simply refer me to a piece of evidence. I’ll read cards after the round, but I try to keep the total amount down. Consult counterplans are probably cheating. With that said, I vote on them a lot, and while I feel dirty about it, am more than willing to punish unprepared affirmative teams. Please understand the difference between textual and functional competition when debating CP theory.

Kritiks: I think that these add another strategic dimension to the debate that ought to be exploited. However I think that this often makes it more difficult for the Neg, because I expect a framework to be clearly set up about how I am supposed to evaluate the kritik. This does not mean that you read a policy-making bad framework in the 1NC, but I need to know what it means to endorse the kritik, and how the kritik interacts with the claims made by the affirmative. Answering these questions is a good start: What in the aff am I rejecting? All or part of it? Can they leverage the case against the impacts of the K? What does the ballot do? Who am I and what agency do I have as a policymaker, activist, person with illusory power in the back of the room? These questions are gateway questions, because without answers, I don’t know how to evaluate the substance. By all means run them, I'm likely at least somewhat familiar with the substance of the argument so long drawn out explanations aren't always necessary. But if you are running something a bit newer or not as common, don't assume that I know what you mean. Conversely, I'm okay being that gatekeeper that Kafka was talking about, but I need a warrant why it’s good to exclude their positions in favor of something else.

My view on performance is akin to my view on kritiks. I always enjoyed the rounds where I debated