Maerowitz,+Matt

I debated in High School for 4 years at Brophy in AZ. Debated at Boston College - Class of 2010. Spent a semester in Mexico. Coached Salpointe 2010-2012.

If a debater were to ask me before the start of the round what my judging paradigm was I would probably say that I would vote for anything, which is true in the sense that I will never blindly strike an argument off the flow. However, I definitely prefer some arguments over others.
 * General**

I default to a policymaking framework unless someone gives me a reason not to. If you are affirmative, you should read a plan. Not having a plan is like saying "Hi everybody, I'm a moving target."
 * Framework**

I think competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate topicality; however, reasonability is debatable. Additionally, I enjoy hearing creative affirmatives, and if the aff has contextual evidence supporting that their affirmative is under the resolution, I will lean aff. Topicality Bad arguments are bankrupt and should //never// be used as a substitute for defending topicality.
 * Topicality**

While Boston College is known for being shy of the K, I ran plenty of Kritiks in high school. At the same time, most Kritik rounds make me cringe. Using a myriad of complex words when describing a Kritik will likely lose you speaker points. I also dislike debaters who are vague in cross-x when being questioned on the Kritik. The best way for the negative to pick up my ballot on the Kritik is to give specific link stories in terms of the affirmative case. If you do run a Kritik, it must have an alternative. The alternative does not need to fiat anything but can simply be rejection as long as the Kritik proves that the Aff is bad (thus the K functions as a disad to the case). If you tell me that your K is a gateway issue (which by the way I hate this terminology), you are saying that you are only conditionally advocating the K.
 * Kritiks**

I tend to like unique case-specific counterplans. I am not a big fan of Consult CPs, run them if you want but I have yet to understand why they are competitive. I am more than willing to vote on well-articulated/poorly-answered counterplan theory. If you are affirmative, you should definitely run at least one permutation. I think a majority of counterplans are not competitive and going for a permutation in response to a counterplan in the 2AR can be very strategic.
 * Counterplans**

Like any judge, I love case-specific disads. I also believe that it is far more important for a disad to have a strong link than a strong impact. Your disad doesn't need to end in nuclear war for it to be a good one. On politics: In my senior year of high school, I was a very serious politics debater and absolutely love politics. Probably the one thing I miss most about my debates were my awesome politics rounds with what I am still convinced to be the best politics file out there. As a result, I will enjoy hearing a good politics debate. At the same time I will loath a bad politics debate so if you run politics, make sure you know what you are talking about.
 * DAs**

-I hate almost all plan flaw arguments. I believe in the reasonable intent standard and I think any of those no-solvency claims due to a small grammatical error or such is ridiculous. -Spec arguments are typically bad, if a team is willing to defend USFG that is fine with me as long as they don't sever out of USFG links or USFG bad turns. I buy the argument that the affirmative must specify as much as the resolution. -I believe debate is a great activity and you will find a very difficult time winning that we should dramatically change the way debate is conducted. If you dislike strategic argumentation then debate is probably not the right activity for you. -If you think debate is racist, you are blind to true societal racism that unfortunately still takes a place in our society.
 * Biggest Dislikes**

-I really like negatives that run a solid amount of well-researched and well-explained offense on the case. -Narratives are great but only if run correctly. A correctly run (aff) narrative would support the passage of a topical plan. -I normally stick pretty closely to the flow. I tend to only call for a couple of cards at the end of the debate. -The 2NR has the burden of explanation.
 * Miscellaneous**

-If you are the only one timing don't be a jerk and accidentally stop the timer during your speech or prep time and be like "let's just say I have four minutes left" -As long as it isn’t really insulting to the other team, jokes are great. A funny team will get higher speaker points. Being witty and making good arguments is ideal. Also, I'm one of the few judges whom your extremely corny jokes might work on.
 * General Etiquette Stuff**

I am putting this last because I used to not include my views on theory thinking they really didn't vary from the general community. Realizing I was mistaken I will give what is more of a "diatribe" on theory...take it or leave it. Like most judges I believe that normally theory is nothing more than a reason to reject the argument, but here is where I differ: "reject the argument not the team" does not function as a guaranteed neutralization. For me, unless both teams are to some sort of an agreement that the theory argument is //not// a voting issue, then reject the argument not the team is more of a tiebreaker. This means, make the argument but don't expect the theory to go away just because you made it. I know this is a bit different from the norm but I have seen some of the most theoretically illegitimate stuff become commonplace in the debate community which has truly decreased the quality of certain debates. As a result, theory (both aff and neg) can in and of itself be a //reason// to vote if the other team makes it a point of why the other team should lose the round for doing X. Granted, winning theory in front of me will probably require you to do a lot of the analysis on your own. Reading theory blocks in rebuttals will not fly and will likely lose you speaker points. Winning theory requires applying standards of argumentation to debate in real terms. By this I mean: Talk about what allowing me to do X justifies. What does it mean if I merely reject the argument and not the team? Is there any difference here (other than the name I write on the ballot)? If so what is the difference and why is it big enough to justify a vote or no vote on theory? What do I allow future teams to do? If you manage to pull off a good theory round, I will likely enjoy it as much as a good counterplan or kritik round.
 * Theory**

One last point I want to stress on theory is BE CREATIVE. I think theory is one of the biggest areas where there is plenty of room for creativity. Unfortunately, theory debates have had a tendency to involve the least degree of debater creativity. If I am the judge I like hearing new analysis and unique theory arguments even if they have not been commonly accepted in the debate community. I think there are unique things that can be done on theory yet most debaters try to avoid because they aren't prewritten on blocks or have never heard of it done before. Even simple things such as "artificial competition justifies intrinsic perms that are structurally relevant to the counterplan" are probably true arguments but never get made. Sometimes this can also involve making entirely new arguments like proposing "test frameworks" that solve for the opposing team's offense while testing the fairness of their framework.

A couple general things on theory: -dispositionality is essentially conditionality -Disquised and/or blippy independent (cheap-shot) voters will not go far with me.