Matton,+Elise


 * Elise Matton **

T__HE NITTY GRITTY:__ · Spread or don’t spread, I really don’t care either way and contrary to other judges I know won’t think less of you if it’s not your thing. Speed is fine but I’ll probably like you a lot more if you spread in a way that doesn’t make you monotonal and boring to listen to. Go slower/clearer/or otherwise give vocal emphasis to key issues such as plan text or aff advocacy, CP texts, alts, ROB/ROJ, counter-interps, etc etc. · I’m down for K positions, aff or neg, but you’ll probably want to read more about my background and preferences in the K section (see below) to figure out how best to access my ballot. · Underviews/overviews are sadly under-utilized, and giving a super stellar one is a sure way to impress me and/or increase your likelihood of winning my ballot. · Don’t include me on email chains or flash exchanges; your speech time doesn’t include my reading time. You have the burden of clearly delivering your speech well enough that having the arguments in front me shouldn’t be necessary. I’ll call for arguments and evidence as necessary post-round (ideally not unless absolutely required for me to clear up an issue crucial for my RFD). · The most impressive debaters to me are ones who can handle intense high level technical debates, but who can make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences. · Just because an argument is dropped doesn't necessarily mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there. Feel free to spend less time on it for obvious reasons if it was dropped, but don't feel bad when a bad hidden theory spike doesn't win you the round if you don't warrant it. · The stoneface thing never really works for me and you’ll probably notice me either nodding occasionally or looking quizzically from time to time- if something sounds confusing or I’m not following you’ll be able to tell and can and should probably spend a few more seconds re-explaining that argument in another way. Note the nodding doesn't mean I necessarily agree with a point, just following it and think you're explaining it well. If you find this distracting please say so pre-round and I’ll make an effort not to do so. __My Background__ I’m currently an assistant coach for Albuquerque Academy, which is also where I competed from 2005-2010 in policy debate. In college I co-founded the team at Tulane University and competed in both NPDA and IPDA, and worked part time for Isidore Newman primarily in policy as well. If it means anything to your strat, I’m also working on my MA studying history and critical pedagogy. When I was competing I stayed mostly local circuit in New Mexico, and debated mostly stock issues BUT I really enjoy and love judging debates I myself never got to have or never had in-depth- aka I’ve judged a lot of K debates, performance debates, high level theory debates, etc etc since retiring as a competitor, and really enjoy them for the most part. Just because I did things one way in high school does not mean I have a specific affinity for it- I’m really open to most arguments, but don’t assume I have extensive background in whatever you’re reading- your clarity of explaining the argument is key.

__Role as a Judge__

I see myself mostly as tab ras, though I of course have implicit bias like everyone else. What I mean by this is that I evaluate the arguments and debate as they are given to me, I don’t think you should have to cater completely to my preferences, and I attempt to do as little intervention as possible. I believe all types of judges are valid judges and that good debaters should be able to adapt to multiple audiences. Does this mean completely altering everything you do to adapt to a certain judge (K judge, anti-spreading judge, lay judge, etc etc)? No, but it does mean thinking concretely about how you can filter your strategy/argument/approach through a specific lens for that person. **HOW I MAKE MY RFD**: At the end of the 2NR I usually mark the key areas I could see myself voting and then weigh that against what happens in the 2AR to make my decision. My favorite 2NR/2AR’s are ones that directly lay out and tell me the possible places in the round I could vote for them and how/why. **2NR’s that are essentially a list of possible RFDs for me are my favorite** because not only do they make my work easier, but it clearly shows me how well you understood and interpreted the round.

__Topicality/Theory__

I loved the T debate in high school, mostly because it has such a natural structure to it that provided great line-by-line debates when I was first learning how to do clean refutations. **I see T and Theory as a needing to exist in debate as protective measures, but I also have a fairly high threshold.** I don’t mind having it in a debate, but rounds where my RFD is predicated on it aren’t my favorite. Reasonability tends to ring true to me for the Aff on T, but don’t be afraid to force them to prove or meet that interpretation, especially if it is a stretch. For theory, I don’t have a problem with conditional arguments but do when a neg strat is almost entirely dependent on running an absurd amount of offcase arguments as a time skew that prevents any substantive discussion of arguments. This kind of strat also assumes I’ll vote on something simply because it was “flowed through”, when really I still have to examine the weight of that argument, which in almost all of these cases is insubstantial. At the end of the day, don’t be afraid to use theory- it’s there for a reason for when you need it, but the key word in that is the “need” part. **If you’re going to run it, please spend time in the standards and voters debate so I can weigh it effectively**.

__Disadvantages__

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I love a really good DA, especially with extensive impact comparisons. The cost/benefit aspect of the case/DA debate is particularly appealing to me. I don’t think generic DA’s are necessarily bad but good links and/or analytics are key. Be sure your impact scenario is fully developed with terminal impacts. Multiple impact scenarios are good. **I'm not anti nuke war scenarios (it is 2017 after all), but there are tons more systemic level impacts too many debaters neglect.**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">__Counterplans__

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I used to hate PICs but have seen a few really smart ones in the past few years that are making me challenge that notion. That being said I am not a fan of process CPs, but go for it if it’s key to your strat.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">__Kritiks__

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Love them, with some caveats. **Overviews/underviews, or really clearly worded taglines are key here. If your tagline is more confusing than your lit, we’re both going to have a bad time.** I did some K’s in high school (mostly very traditional cap/biopower) but was pretty abysmal with them. They weren’t as common in my circuit so I didn’t have a ton of exposure to them. However they’ve really grown on me and I’ve learned a lot while judging them- they’re probably my favorite kind of debate to watch these days. (hint: I truly believe in education as a voter, but this can work in aff’s favor when terrible K debates happen that take away from topic education as well). Being willing to adapt your K to those unfamiliar with it, whether opponents or judge, not only helps you in terms of potential to win the ballot, but also vastly increases likelihood for real world solvency (that is if your K is one that posits real world solvency- I'm down for more discussion-based rounds as theoretical educational exercises as well). I say this because the direction I’ve decided to take my graduate school coursework in is directly because of good K debaters who have been willing to go the extra step in truly explaining these positions, regardless of the fact I wasn’t a “K judge”. I think that concept is bogus and demonstrates some of the elitism still sadly present in our activity. **If you love the K, run it- however you will need to remember that I myself wasn’t a K debater and am probably not as well versed in the topic/background/author**. As neg you will need to spend specific time really explaining to me the alt/role of the ballot/answers to any commodification type arguments. I’m open to lots of aff answers here as well including framework arguments focused on policymaking good, state inevitable, perms, etc.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">__MISCELLANEOUS__

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Flash time isn’t prep time (don’t take advantage of this though). Debaters should keep track of their own time, but I also tend to time as well in case of the rare timer failure. I don’t like having speech documents while you’re debating, because I think it ruins the burden debaters have to clearly explain their arguments, (aka don’t assume I’ll keep up or keep track if you’re spreading poorly and incomprehensibly by reading the cards on my computer). I am however totally willing to pull cards after if need be. Usually this happens if teams specifically tell me to, or if the debate is very messy and I need to resolve certain things myself (note: I hate doing this, it feels very interventionist and icky, try to keep it clean).

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I will yell “clear” if the spread is too incoherent for me to flow, but not if otherwise (aka don’t expect me to yell it to help speaker points). If I have to say it more than twice you should probably slow down significantly. My preference while spreading is to go significantly slower/louder/clearer on the tagline and author. Don’t spread out teams that are clearly much slower than you- you don’t have to go incredibly slowly, but you should adapt slightly to make the round educational for everyone. I think spreading is a debate skill you should employ at your discretion, bearing in mind what that means for your opponents and the judge in that round. Be smart about it, but also be inclusive for whoever else is in that round with you.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Please feel free to ask any further questions or clarifications before/after the round- my email is enmatton@gmail.com if you have any specific questions or need to run something by me. Last updated November, 2017.