de+Matteis,+Giuseppe

Debate experience: I debate for two years and half years in High School for Benjamin Banneker Academy. I am currently a freshman debating for Brooklyn College (CUNY) as JV.


 * I am open to any sort of argument that anyone makes. I've had my fair share of policy and I am slowly transitioning into K debate, so I am a bit more understanding and tolerant of Kritiks. That is not to say I don't vote on kritiks. I just feel there needs to be a better explanation of the kritik and what it does, the same goes for policy. You know what? **Everything needs good explanation**. Period.
 * **I like to vote on the flow**. I don't like intervening as a judge (unless told otherwise). Every argument needs to be explained at least one, so if you're going to just extend a bunch of arguments make sure they're explained! ( Have you picked up on the pattern?)
 * If you're paperless or some form of paperless then **I do not count flashing as prep**. However, if the time it takes to flash becomes too extensive then I will run prep. **I also give 10 minutes of free time to fix any proven technical issue** you maybe experiencing in the debate round.
 * I always prefer that debaters treat each other with respect. There is only a certain level of snarky that I will allow in the debate round before I start deducting speaker points. You don't have to be nice but you certainly don't have to be rude. Cursing is fine, keep to a minimum and if you're going to get up and say offensive things please have a reason. Don't just say offensive things because it's debate.
 * Speed is not an issue but if you go too fast or unclear then I will let you know. I would prefer that you read at a consistent pace as oppose to really loud speed reading, but don't let my preference deter you from doing what you do best.
 * I really like Impact Calculus. I think it's really important part of the debate. I look to it as a first and last resort in all situations. If Impact calculus isn't really well done then I just need a really clear reason as to why you win the debate round and we can go from there.
 * **Theory:** Theory is really an important issue in the debate especially when you can prove actual in round abuse. If someone runs 6+ off-case then maybe condo is good theory to run. I will vote on theory under certain conditions. 1. There is actual in-round abuse, potential abuse needs more work but I don't buy it (half the time). 2. It's dropped 3. It's debate properly and there are actual reasons to believe the other team is lacking in this debate. Often times I will default to not voting for theory if a member makes just enough arguments to drop it...simply: if it becomes a wash. (My favorite theory arguments: floating pics bad, pref con good and bad, utopian good and bad).
 * **Topicality:** I love a good T debate. I feel that the best part of a T debate is when the negative spins the story really well and they prove that AFF is being abusive not just by how the C/I is bad and abusive but how the AFF causes actual in-round abuse!
 * **DisAd:** I like a good DisAd debate. Seriously, there nothing more that I would like to hear than the aff messing up the status qou. Things are usually fair game. For DisAds, I like a lot of warrant analysis so I can understand how the affirmative cause the status qou to change. I don't count reading a 10000 impact cards as impact calc.
 * **CounterPlans**- These are the worse things in the world. I will vote for them, but the first piece of offense I look forward is the perm. Please perm a CP...make up dribble (make it make sense). I like permutation text, I feel it's a good way to resolve a lot of abuse in the debate round and help teams win the flow better. I don't like voting on net benefit-less CPs (But I will if I must).
 * **Case:** This is tricky. If the Affirmative is losing on solvency, I will often feel obligated to give them the the chance of 1% (if that argument is made; this by no means that this is the norm. It is simply under certain circumstances).
 * **Kritiks:** Explain the Kritik to me well. Explain the Kritik to me so well that you think if you don't explain well, that I am going to drop you and vote AFF on presumption. I am learning how to run Kritiks. They're fun. I like CAP the most. No stupid abusive stuff...seriously. Be realistic.
 * **Framework:** Framework debates are good. I prefer state enacting frameworks. Whatever other framework you present is fine also.

= =