Witman,+Madison

I currently debate at the University of Oklahoma Debated all four years in high school -- CX, LD, PF, Congress, Extemp, OO, Poetry, you name it Went to NFL's (or now, NSDA's) all four years -- 15th in LD

__//IF I'M IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM, REGARDLESS OF THE EVENT://__ Speed is totally fine. But please, please, please be clear. As someone who has had/still has to do plenty of drills to be clear, I understand it can be difficult to annunciate your words but adjust your speed according to how well you can. There is nothing wrong with going a little slower to make actual arguments. I'll say clear a few times. But if I have to say it too much, I'll set the pen down.

Humor and puns are absolutely okay and encouraged. I personally don't believe debates should be super awkward and rigid. You probably debate because you like it and it's fun--make it fun. If you make a joke about the pageant life, I'll probably laugh and love you forever. With that being said, don't be offensive or degrading. It might not always lose you the round, but your speaks will be reflected.

Please don't call me "judge". Call me Mattie. Eazy-M. Whatever you choose, just please god, not "judge".

Don't cheat. Don't clip. Don't steal prep. You debate fair, I'll care.

To quote Larry Zhou, "Evidence comparison is a lost art." Do with that what you will.

Have some "swag". If you're sassy and are not afraid to show it in debate, do it. If you are a total nerd, I'll understand your references most likely. It's not totally necessary but if you show some personality and that you aren't just a card spewing robot, your speaks will most likely reflect that.

//IMPORTANT//: use some sort of indicator when you switch cards or are reading a tag. If I can't tell, it doesn't go on my flow. As obsessive compulsive as I am, I won't try and perfect the flows for you.


 * CX**

__Cross-ex:__ It's probably binding. Don't be shifty. You need to understand your advocacy before the round--if anything it's just an awkward debate if you don't and really confusing for everyone involved.

//__Performance:__// Yes! Go for it! I would prefer it to have some tie to the topic of sort whether it's via song, poem, visual performance, etc. But, I am willing to jive with whatever you wanna go for. If you K the res, that's cool! Just tell me why and what it means for this blank piece of paper in front of me that I have to sign at the end of the round.

//__Topicality__:// T is fine. I usually default to competing interpretations so, please give me reasons why your interp is preferred. Tell me how the aff violates, and why that should matter to me. It isn't enough to just repeat the tags of your standards. Tell me why they matter. Impact, impact, impact.

//__Counterplans__//: sure! I generally don't love CP's that include 100% of the aff's solvency at some point but I will vote for one. Tell me why the counterplan is competitive. Have net benefit(s). Explain your net benefit(s). Win the net benefit(s). Love your net benefit(s).

//__Disadvantages__:// yeah, yo. Specifically, I love a good politics debate. But any DA's are just fine too. Please explain to me why it links and why it matters.

__//Framework://__ oh geez. If the aff is not unreasonably debatable, framework is probably not the best to read in front of me. I have a pretty high threshold on framework debates against affs that are critical but still are debatable. I think debate is a unique space that issues that affect society (that are usually silenced) can and should be talked about. I will have a hard time believing that the only thing to read against an aff that talks about something critical is framework. But, I obviously won't vote you down for reading framework. Just win it. Same with T. Tell me about the impacts and why they matter. Saying "fairness is great AF" is not enough for me to vote on it. Tell me why. Try and be clean on the flow though because often they get very dispersed and messy after the 2AC.

//__Kritik:__// *blushes* I love the K. With that being said, if you read this and think "Oh, Mattie loves the K, guess that means we get to read that really obscure K that doesn't link to the aff and that we don't understand just for funzies", you, my friend, are wrong. Because I love the K, I would like to see it deployed right. I have a general understanding and can jive with most K's but I'm not familiar with all theory/philosophy. I also won't do work for you in terms of explanation if you don't give it to me in the round. One thing I think is super important is explaining what the alt does if the aff links. Please give some comparison between the world of the affirmative and the world of the alternative.

Also, just because I really like the K, don't feel like you have to read one in front of me. I'm totally cool with more policy args and in some cases I think they can be really strategic. You do you. And I'll decide from there.

__//Theory://__ I have a moderate threshold on theory. I think there needs to be clear abuse or the justification for future abuse. Similar to twerking, I feel like there is a time and place for theory. If you read vague alts, reject the aff bad, and some other specific shell on a K while simultaneously reading 4 perms, I will probably roll my eyes at you. Be smart with it. If there's abuse, I'll listen to it but if you're just reading time-sucks, I'm gonna have a harder time voting for it. But nonetheless, just like anything, impact it out.


 * LD **

//__Framework:__// Having debated on a relatively traditional circuit, I know some people really start worrying about semantics and common names for things in front of judges--I always did anyway. Here's what I mean.

1. You don't have to call a criterion a "criterion". I know what a standard is. But you don't have to call it a standard either. Just whatever it is that you use to weigh a round--as long as I know what it is, we're Gucci.

2. I would much prefer to see a clash on criterion/standard debate than on the value. If you have similar values or completely unrelated ones, it's better to know how to uphold or weigh those values. So tell me.

__//Off Cases//:__ I like them. All the preferences from the CX section apply here. But quick note: I know this type of progressive debate is relatively new especially if I judge you in Oklahoma. If this is your normal strat and if this is how you feel comfortable debating, by all means, go for it. But if for some reason you're running this obscure argument that you don't really ever read just to psych out some poor novice opponent--and it's obvious--you're speaks will most likely reflect that. Debates that don't engage, aren't fun to watch, much less make a decision about. It's my job as a judge and former debater to make debate inclusive and safe for everyone. No need to beat up on some little kid just because you can spell "anthropocentrism". Seriously, there are other ways to win.

//__Theory:__// Again, have clear abuse. If there is some strategic aspect to a theory shell you're reading and there isn't clear abuse, explain why you're being squirrelly. I can respect that, if it has a creative/strategic purpose. Other than that, I'm probably not the best judge to read copious amounts of shells in just because I'm not as versed in those debates as I probably should be. I'll do my best to evaluate your arguments as best I can though. Just be patient with me. And just like on the CX paradigm, impact, impact, impact. Again, I usually default to competing interns and reject the arg.


 * PF**

I don't really know how to divide it up for PF so pardon my paragraph. Most of my preferences for other debates can be applied here, although I really don't know what the strategy of running a K, theory, or a DA in a PF round would be... maybe a CP. I don't know. Just make it clear what you're doing and why it matters. I feel like evidence comparison becomes a bigger deal in these debates then any. Also, please don't try and talk completely over each other in grand-cross fire. Or at least, 2 at a time.

If you have any questions, please just ask before the round. I'm pretty easy to talk to. Just ask. More questions? email me at madwitman@gmail.com