Backus,+Matt

Background: Four years of LD for Trinity Prep ('99), five years teaching at SNFI, five years of part-time coaching here and there.

I have a strong preference for thorough, thoughtful, well-presented arguments.

A handful of things that will not compel my vote:

Unwarranted or underdeveloped arguments: Whether or not your opponent drops them, I simply don't vote on incomplete arguments.

Theory claims: I have a limited tolerance for these sorts of arguments. I can vote on them, but I need to *agree* with you, which takes more than a drop or an ineffective response from your opponent.

Cards: I hold cards subject to the same standard of argumentation as I do you-- they require a claim and a well-developed warrant; the appeal to authority carries no weight with me. If you want to cite statistics, I expect you to be prepared to defend the source, their funding, the methodology, and the interpretation of those statistics to your opponent.

In my opinion, good debate requires serious clash on the central arguments. Strategy in LD has evolved to help debaters avoid that clash, and instead win rounds based on drops and half-arguments. This makes judging dull and unrewarding. While I do vote on the flow, I am always more inclined to vote for debaters who present persuasive ideas and actively engage their opponents'.

Finally, on speed: I have no objections on principle, and I can handle reasonable speed. However, if your presentation suffers then your speaker points will as well, and needless to say I will not vote on anything I cannot flow. That means I expect clear signposting, good word economy, and clearly structured arguments.