Matson,+Shawn

Lynbrook HS 2015-present Also constrained against Arcadia KW Whitefish Bay HS 2009-2015 Marquette University HS 2014-2015
 * Shawn Matson **


 * I haven't judged a lot of LD this year, I'm not actively coaching at the level I have been in the past, and I think I'm officially an old person in debate now because I'm not as permissive as I used to be about a lot of things. Specifically, I can't flow nearly as well as I'd like to and have in the past. **

--- I just generally do not enjoy, like, or follow blippy arguments well. --- I'll default to comparative worlds; drop the debater on T, drop the arg on Theory. --- If you want to play it safe, go util I guess? --- If you're reading crit lit you need to slow down. --- I do enjoy the K, but positions that have clear links/impacts are much easier for me to understand. I'm most familiar with fem, ecofem, borders, ableism, and less familiar with race and the germans. Doesn't mean you can't/shouldn't run it. --- You should go slower than you probably want to. I’m not incapable of flowing spread, but I prefer to understand your arguments and be able to have a better handle of your args. Faster = less clarify of what’s happening on my flow, typically. I’ll say clear once or twice. I think we're both happier at the end of the round when everyone is on the same page more or less. --- Please speak very loudly and clearly. And I do mean loud. --- Especially if you're operating outside of a policymaking paradigm then I need you to tell me what to do with the arguments clearly. --- Debate is, above all, an educational environment. Play your games but don't expect me to chew on offensive args (Schmitt, "lolz Nazis r good," etc.) without throwing up.
 * 1. Overview: **

--- If theory is your way to get out of debating, then don’t bother rating me anything but a strike. I might even like intervene or something if my gut tells me its lowering the quality of the round, preventing education (even if you say the opposite is true). I do vote on theory issues often enough and I'm not categorically opposed to it. I think theory should be safe and legal and rare. --- The first question you should ask when you shake the dust off your interp is this: Am I checking real abuse? Generally, my threshold for responses to strategic theory are quite low. --- I think RVI's are more of a real thing than people think they are and starting with the 2015-16 season I have begun to respond affirmatively to RVIs. --- I got to vote on disclosure theory once and it was awesome because it wasn't generic and it was specific to the situation. So, while I'm not excited about theory I'm also going to try and treat it as a real argument if it is.
 * 2. Theory: **

--- Miscut evidence/misrepresent author puts you at risk of loss + speaks tanked. --- I don’t generally call for cards unless: I’m told to or there is a dispute about the credibility or content of a card read.
 * 3. Evidence: **

--- I have been called a point fairy. However, if you're dishonest/unethical, your points will suffer. --- I do give out a 30 every now and again. I do not think a 30 is sacred. I acknowledge the fact that, despite how ridiculous it is for this to be true on a 30 point scale, that giving you lower speaks might jeopardize whether or not you break. And I just don't think that's something I want to play with often. I’m generous in a bubble round. Social loafing, I guess. --- Also, if you argue with me about my decision after the round I will begin subtracting speaker points very punitively.
 * 4. Speaks: **

You can contact me at [|shawn.matson@gmail.com] for any reason. Or find me on [|facebook].