Munday,+Matt

Background: Debated at Wichita State University 2008-2012, currently coach at the University of Texas-Dallas and Notre Dame HS.

I am not the kind of judge who will read every card at the end of the debate. Claims that are highly contested, evidence that is flagged, or other important considerations will of course get my attention. Debaters should do the debating. Quality evidence is also important. If the opposing team's cards are garbage, it is your responsibility to let that be known. Before reading my preferences about certain arguments, keep in mind that it is in your best interest to do what you do best. My thoughts on arguments are general predispositions and not necessarily absolute.

T – Topicality is important. The affirmative should have a relationship to the topic. However, how one goes about defending the topic is somewhat open to interpretation. I will not automatically vote against you if your aff does not defend the topic. However, my predisposition still leans towards the thought that engaging the topic is a good and productive end. I tend to think implementation of the plan must be defended, but there is a debate to be had. I am most persuaded by topicality debates that focus on questions of limits. Competing interpretations typically makes more sense to me than reasonability.

Disads/Case Debate – Among my favorite debates to judge. Clash is built in and evidence comparison occurs naturally. Offense is important, but it seems like defense is often undervalued. I am willing to assign 0% risk to something if a sufficient defensive argument is made.

Counterplans – I lean neg on conditionality and PICs. Functional competition seems more relevant than textual competition. If the affirmative is asked about the specific agent of their plan, they should answer the question. Actual solvency advocates are important.

Kritiks – While I am not very deep on the literature base, I do think these are strategic arguments. I expect the negative to explain the impact of their argument beyond nebulous claims. It seems like the aff generally outweighs. However, good K debates usually control the key framing questions that make those concerns irrelevant. I tend to think of the alternative like a uniqueness counterplan. It benefits the aff to have clever perms as well as offense against the alt.

Theory – A quality theory argument should have a developed warrant/impact. “Reject the argument, not the team” resolves most theory arguments except for conditionality. It benefits both teams to slow down slightly when engaging in the theory debate. Making sure I am able to sufficiently flow the substance of these debates is important.

Speaker Points Scale
 * Scale || Adjective || Description ||
 * 29.6-30 || The Best || Everything you could ask for as a judge and more. ||
 * 29-29.5 || Very, Very good || Did everything you could expect as a judge very, very well. ||
 * 28.6-28.9 || Very Good || Did very well as a whole, couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout. ||
 * 28.3-28.5 || Good || Better than average. Did most things well. Couple moments of brilliance combined with errors. ||
 * 28-28.2 || OK || Basic skills, abilities, and expectations met. But, some errors along the way. Very little to separate themselves from others. Clearly prepared, just not clearly ahead of others. ||
 * 27.5-27.9 || OK, but major errors || Tried hard, but lack some basic skills or didn’t pay close enough attention ||
 * 27-27.4 || Needs Improvement – major errors/lacked effort || Major errors committed, effort questionable ||
 * Below 27 || Bad, and I intend for you to take it that way || Disrespected one’s opponent, the judge, or otherwise ||