Heider,+Matt

Name: Matt Heider Affiliated Schools: Neenah High School (WI) Debate history: 4 years policy High School Debate, less than 1 year judging Number of rounds judged on this topic: 30+ Paradigm: Tabs

__**Overall**__

Speed - I'm fine with speed I'd give myself a 9/10 on being able to flow/understand you. I won't tell you if you're going to fast or if I can't understand you. Speed won't be an issue 90% of the time unless I get someone that's just insanely fast. The issue I have is understanding you if you're quiet or mumbling or slurring words together.

Etiquette - I prefer that debates are civil, especially when one of the sides is completely outmatched. By all means keep the foot on the gas, but don't be a prick. I believe there can be a happy medium between being professional and aggressive at the same time.

__//**LD**//__

I have been almost exclusively judging LD rounds this year, slightly different then Policy that I am used too, but still very comparable. I don't have any issues understanding a wide array of arguments. I don't come into the round with any preconceived notions, or ideas on either who's going to win the round or what arguments i'll value over others. You can debate whatever you like in front of me as long as you can explain me how I should be voting.

F/W - Is huge for me. I want you tell me how I should be voting, on what I will be voting on. Make the Role of the Ballot very clear to me. I also want clash as well between frameworks. Reasons why I should prefer your f/w over others, etc. If there is no clash between f/w's and you're just reading cards at me, I might be salty at the end of the round.

Impacts - I need reasons why I should prefer your case over your opponents, if you're both accessing morality for example, explain to me how you access it better, or why even if you don't access better why I should prefer your impact over your opponents. Make it clear at the end of the round what i am voting for.

Theory - I will vote on it, but show me in-round abuse.

__**Policy**__

Debating in Policy for several years, I believe I understand it well. Like LD I won't vote you down just because I don't like the argument. I also don't care who I vote for, so honestly do what you're best at.

Topicality - You're gonna have to show me in-round abuse, I don't want to see pointless T arguments. I'm not gonna vote for them, unless the other team completely drops them. Like running a T violation on a plan that is basically the resolution, doesn't do anything for anybody in the round. So make sure that it's an actual violation if you decide to go for it.

Kritikal - Big fan of kritiks. I can understand them mostly, but the issue with Kritiks is that usually the person who runs them doesn't understand them. So make sure you know what you're talking about just in case I have no clue, that way I can understand your argument. If you are gonna run a kritik make sure you win F/W or at least explain how you fit into your opponent's.

Theory - Same with Topicality, I will vote on it, but show me in-round abuse.

DA/CP - Go nuts.

Impacts - Spell it out to me in the end why you outweigh and win the round. Show me why your 17 nuclear war scenarios outweigh their politics DA. Tell me why I should vote for you.

Any questions email me, either post round or pre-round. matthew.j.heider@gmail.com

Disclaimer: I did not proofread.