Cavnar-Johnson,+Matt

**Tl;DR**

 * I like to make decisions that are easy. I tend towards evaluating arguments in a a way that minimizes the amount of work I have to do to justify my decision.**

About me
I debated cx for all four years of high school and graduated in 2017. I'm currently debating for the University of Minnesota. My last 2 years of high school I was the 2a for mostly performanceish k affs and soft left policy affs. Most of my partner's 2nr had a K in them or T (not FW). I debated on a mostly local circuit in Houston, Texas. He/Him/His pronouns

Policy Paradigms
Speed: I'm probably fine with your speed. But its possible for you to be incomprehensible even if you are going at a speed I can understand. I'll interrupt you once if I can't understand you. For high school rounds, I flow on my computer so slowing down on tags/cites is appreciated.

Speaker Points: I'll drop speaks for ableist/racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, etc comments very quickly. I won't commit to specifics but I won't give less than 25 unless you misgender someone after being corrected. I probably won't down you on this kind of stuff unless the other team turns it into an argument (which I'm more than willing to vote for) or if it gets aggressively bad. If any of this bothers you, strike me

Flashing/Speech Docs: I'd like to be included in email chains if that is applicable (mattcj.debate.other at g-mail). I won't count flashing as prep unless you are prepping during it (Looking at all the 1Ns while the 2NC is being flashed) in which case I will announce that I'm running prep. I don't expect this to happen often.

Style: I dislike debates that turn into everyone spreading through their blocks without any direct clash. I also tend to expect less explanation for arguments that are dropped, but strongly dislike 2 things. 1: When a debater claims their opponent dropped something they clearly didn't and 2: Saying "they dropped x that means they lose the round". It is very possible that dropping X means they lose the round, but you still need to explain why. I don't care if they drop arguments that clearly don't matter; its called strategy. Repeating "they dropped x" over and over again (looking at you 2NRs who spend 5 minutes repeating overviews from the block that the 1AR didn't bother with) isn't going to help you. Pet peave: "you" refers to the judge, not the opponent when you are giving a speech.

Evaluating rounds: My tendency is to figure out the framing mechanism I should use in my decision, and then deciding which team best won under that framing. If an argument not in the 2NR/2AR I probably won't vote for it unless it was agreed to by both sides. The more I do college debate, the more I have begun to realize that I value tech over truth more that the average judge. That said, my threshold for voting on one line arguments or arguments that are really obviously bad is still high, especially theory. I like to look at evidence after the round to help me make my decision, especially in an unclear/muddled debate. I like when debaters try to make my decisions as easy as possible with the least intervention on my part.

CX: I listen to CX but generally don't flow unless something important/problematic is said. Tag teaming is fine by me. I generally don't think cx is binding for stuff other than the status of cp/alts but I could be persuaded otherwise.

Affs: Do whatever style of aff you want to do. I did K affs with performance elements in them so do whatever. But just because I say that, doesn't mean everyone reading a plan should strike me. I'm more than happy to listen to a plan based aff with 20 extinction scenarios. I am currently reading an aff like that. K affs need a clear framing for why my ballot matters and how it functions and that should probably be in the 1AC.

DA: I'd love to listen to well fleshed out DA debate. Super specific DAs are great but generics are fine by me. Don't run generics that obviously don't link (like most DAs against most K affs), but because I'm leaning towards the education topic being too broad, I will probably listen to generic link arguments even if they are not very good. In general, I like more analytical DA debate than ones that are just evidence dumps. I'm of the philosophy that it is more than possible for aff to win a DA debate without reading any cards against it (though that's not usually the best option).

CP: Please have a solvency advocate for every plank of your CP (which could be a card from the aff. I dislike CPs that just fiat an internal link of the 1AC, but if an aff authors concludes that something other than the 1ac would solve, then that card could function as your solvency advocate). Also be willing to defend the theoretical implications of whatever CP you are reading. Don't say your CP is dispositional unless you can define what that means.

Theory: If you think it might be frivolous and a waste of my time, then it probably is. Most theory arguments that aren't related to CPs/K alts are usually frivolous and I probably won't vote on it unless severely mishandled. That includes ASPEC. I will never vote on disclosure theory ever in a high school round. Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument, unless it is condo or you convince me otherwise.

T (Against plan affs): I love me some T debates. I might be described as a 'T hack'. I took five minutes of T in many 1NRs. I'll quote my coach's judge philosophy " I tend to think that many debaters spend far too much time debating the “link” on topicality (violation) and not enough time debating the “impact” (comparing the effects of competing interpretations on what and how we debate." I'll add that T debaters need to flesh their internal links more in general (ie how does your interp get to your standard, how your standard gets to your voter and how your voter gets to something meaningful). Fairness is not an impact unless you do the work to justify it. I'll probably default to competing interps a lot but I can be persuaded to go for reasonability. Also don't try to argue something to the effect of "T isn't a real argument. If they cared about education they would have debated something other than T" (I'm looking at you, 2ARS unprepared for a 2N to go for T), unless the T is actually frivolous (like 90% of T-Substantial or T-Increase). I'm starting to lean towards the idea that the topic might be too broad, which implicates how I vote on T, but I could easily see myself being persuaded otherwisse.

FW (against K affs): This might seem strange from someone who would describe themselves as a T hack, but I REALLY hate this argument. 95% of the time its read its problematic and I'm easily persuaded by aff impact turns. If the aff is some high theory stuff and not identity oriented then I'll probably tolerate FW. If your strategy against K affs to is to go 1 off FW, then you should probably strike me. If you are reading it alongside another arguments, then feel free, but I have a pretty high standard to be persuaded. Once again fairness is not an impact. Also, you need to actually justify why your interpretation actually leads to any of your impacts. I feel like most FW debaters will just list off the generic SSD, dogmatism etc type arguments and expect me to believe that your FW guarantees that without actually justifying the I/L. I dislike FW debates that turn into everyone (mostly 2Ns) just spreading through their blocks without directly clashing with the opponent. I have literally debated a round where everyone never once deviated from prepared FW blocks. Please don't do this. Additionally, FW debates don't happen in a void where the case doesn't exist just because its a procedural (unlike in T debates). If you concede major truth claims against a K aff, you'll probably lose. I also won't buy that it is impossible for you to prepare against a K aff. The wiki and google both exists. Debate is at a point in which there is not excuse for a well prepared team not to be ready to handle a K aff. However with that being said, I've taken FW in the block before, so don't think I will hate you if you read it.

Ks: This was my bread in butter so feel free to go for anything other than psychoanalysis. I'm at least passingly familiar with most literature bases that tend to get read in high school, but don't be afraid to ask about specific Ks. I have the most experience with Cap, Ableism, and Biopolitics. I expect a clear explanation in how the ballot translates to the alt/alt solvency. A lot of judges tend to say something here to the effect of "I just want to hear a good debate" but at least in high school everyone has to start somewhere, so don't be afraid of running arguments you aren't familiar with. Be prepared for post round commentary and a long ballot in that case. Like in FW, I dislike K debates that turn into everyone (mostly 2Ns) just spreading through their blocks without directly clashing with their opponent. As a sidenote: I feel like most criticisms of the academy/debate don't do enough work to justify why the alt is distinct from academy/debate. I'm am also more that willing to vote on rhetoric Ks of all types. I was/am a 2a, so I'm usually predisposed to let the aff weigh their impacts but can be persuaded otherwise. I'm flowing on excel, so if you have a long overview, try to do it in a way that is clearly labeled and flowable, or I can't guarantee every arg will make it onto my flow. Since this is the end of my paradigm, congrats to getting this far; ask me what the best piece of evidence I ever cut was to prove that you actually read my paradigm.

LD
Speed: I'm a college policy debater, I'm probably fine with your speed.

Framework (of the LD variety): I really like listening to these debates. I imagine the easiest way you can make my decision easy is to win FW. If both sides are reading the same value/value criterion, dont waste me time reiterating it. I am not super familiar with all the random dead white men that LD people like to read from (Kant, Descartes, Locke, etc). I'll still listen to your arguments, but don't expect me to know what you are talking about prior to your explanation.

Moral skep: Look, I haven't actually heard this argument executed before, so I don't have a strong opinion yet. But since its in every other LD paradigm, I thought I might as well mention.


 * Theory: Last time I checked, 99% of LD theory arguments are garbage and a waste of my time. If you think your theory argument might be a waste of my time, it probably is. Because of time constraints in LD, I probably will lean aff on theory questions. Realistically, I lean toward which ever side means I don't have to vote on theory. RVI aren't real, unless you are kritiking theory. I'm skeptical of most side bias arguments.**

Plans: Plans are probably good, but I could be convinced that plans are cheating. I remain open to be convinced. Putting "I reserve the right to clarify" doesn't justify writing bad plan texts.

K: Ks are my favorite arguments. If it is from a field read in policy, then I am probably adequately familiar with for LD standards.

Underviews: No

Flex Prep: Sure

PF
If I ever get roped into judging pf, I'll put something here.