Coffin,+Matthew

=**Experience **: I have been debating varsity at Wheeler High School since my sophomore year. I’ve mostly debated policy-style arguments. =

I’ve spent most of my senior year judging debates rather than debating varsity because I enjoy the process of judging. I am doing this as a volunteer, unpaid, because I enjoy the activity and wish to help others learn. I believe debate is a breeding ground for education and critical thinking, and I love that debate offers the flexibility to create and discuss myriad topics. Though I enjoy judging debates, I will not profess to be wholly free of bias or predispositions, so I will detail how I analyze each argument.


 * Arguments: **


 * Topicality ** – this is my favorite argument to run on the negative. I ran and went for T in many of my debates, so I have a very strong understanding of what each argument means. That being said, in past T debates I have judged, I have voted for the affirmative and the negative about the same number of times. Generally speaking, I appreciate T debates that have strong evidence and lots of evidence. I do believe that two interpretation cards are better than one, provided that a team explains why I should prefer this.


 * Theory **– I very rarely will vote on theory, especially cheap shot theory arguments. I nearly always view dropping an argument as concession, but I will not vote you up for reading a 15 second theory block about some microscopic violation made by the other team. Regarding conditionality, I will probably not vote for the negative unless there are multiple contradictory advocacies. Essentially, you will have a very hard time convincing me to vote for you on a theory violation unless I witness in-round abuse.


 * Disadvantages ** – I abhor politics disadvantages. I keep up with politics pretty reliably, and I know that these disadvantages have claims that are straight up ridiculous. I do my best to remain impartial in debates, but I do encourage the affirmative to explain to me just how far fetched the negative’s claims are because I will probably agree. Regarding disadvantages in general, if your link is not strong, you are probably in a bad spot. I want to know why their affirmative in particular triggers your impact.


 * Critiques **– as I previously stated, I primarily run policy arguments. I do not in any way hate critical arguments, but I need them to be VERY well explained. Explain your jargon to me, go slow, and try to avoid tags that excessively long. I think that the link debate is one of the most important ones in a critical debate; I need the negative to prove to me that the affirmative specifically perpetuates the issues that you discuss. If you blow the link debate out of the water as the negative, I could be convinced to vote negative on a critique without the negative winning the alternative debate by evuating the critique like a disadvantage. However, if you want to spend eight minutes in your 2NC reading K evidence, there is a good chance that I will get lost.


 * Framework ** – If you are debating a critical affirmative or one that does not have a plan text, I would recommend including framework as an argument, even if you don’t plan to advocate it in the 2NR. I believe that the argument is tactical and should be debated like topicality from the negative. From the affirmative, I expect for you to USE your affirmative against framework! Explain to me why your arguments are important and why your choice to forgo a plan text or policy affirmative was a valuable one. There is a difference between theoretical and substantive framework, and I expect you to know that difference if you are advocating a critical affirmative. Prove to me that the discussions you are having cannot be done the way the negative suggests.


 * Counterplans ** – I am certainly no expert on counterplan theory, but I will tend to lean towards the affirmative on things like plan inclusive counterplans or conditions counterplans. I evaluate a counterplan as an alternative to the affirmative, which means that it should have net benefits AND solvency. I will hold the negative to a pretty high standard on solvency, so the affirmative team should spend time questioning the counterplan’s ability to solve.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">Other things ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">: **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Analytical arguments **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> – as a judge, I have a very high threshold for which arguments I will accept without evidence. I believe that a well warranted analytical is just as valuable as a card because, coming from a small, unfunded team, I rarely had sufficient evidence to keep up with the larger teams on our circuit.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Tech versus truth **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> – I try to evaluate both. Obviously, those who advocate their arguments will probably understand them more substantively, so it would be unfair of me to always vote for truth. Alternatively, I understand that teams should actually interact with the arguments they are debating, so I will not necessarily vote for the team that makes more technical arguments.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Ideal speed **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> – I am the judge, so my flow is the most important thing in the debate. Unfortunately, I also happen to be a slow writer. Even if I understand you, there is a chance that I will not be able to write down what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly or unclearly. I HIGHLY prefer debaters who use inflection; if you want me to write something down, emphasize it while you speak by saying it louder, more slowly, and with greater emphasis. Even if you are very clear and very fast, I will probably have trouble flowing you if you speak in monotone.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Flashing **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> – I am trying something where I will give you about 30 seconds (give or take a little) to flash without using your prep time, and then after that I begin taking prep time. I am doing this as a courtesy, so do NOT take advantage of my kindness. If you are prepping during this time, I will lower your speaker points significantly.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Social justice issues **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> – I believe very strongly in the value of discussing social justice issues (feminism, white supremacy, queer theory, gendered language, etc.) and really love judging debates about them, especially because debate is, in my opinion, an excellent medium to raise these issues. The debate community is by no means perfect, and if you believe that discussing social justice issues is beneficial for the community or for yourself within the community, I am happy to listen to you and give you my feedback.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Oppressive language/behavior **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> – I do not think that debate should be a space to perpetuate oppressive discourse or behavior. If you are making arguments or comments that are sexist, racist, ableist, transantagonist, homoantagonist, or anything along those lines, I will not tolerate this as your judge. I hope that the other team will feel comfortable enough to point these things out in their next speech, but I understand that they may not always. If you are making offensive comments or arguments or behaving offensively, your speaker points will significantly suffer, and there is a very good chance that I will vote you down. I try to accept anything a debater says as truth unless the other team specifically interacts with it, but you will have a very hard time convincing me about these sorts of arguments. Ignorance is not an excuse; I may be sympathetic, but I will not accept “we didn’t know” as a reason to vote for you/let something slide.