Johnson,+Matthew

Matt Johnson Debated at Marquette High School and currently debating for Georgia Tech.

Overall do what you do best and I will evaluate it. I don't have a preference to a certain "style" of debate. I will judge the round how the debaters tell me to.

Topicality: I enjoy a good topicality debate and believe that topicality is almost always a voter. I don’t think topicality leads to genocide, even if the Nazi's had rules. If you are going to run a K against topicality, at least make it specific. Also, warrant voters and standards. Just saying “ground” or "moving target" won’t win my ballot. I view topicality in a disadvantage manner and need a clear link and impact to vote on it.

Theory: Usually a reason to reject the argument not the team; however, if there is some time invested and warrants on why it's a reason to reject the team I will reject the team. Go slower on theory, it is mostly analytics and I would like to know what you are saying. Having a specific solvency advocate on the CP helps negatives a lot in these debates. I have some defaults on where I stand on legitimacy of arguments, but can go either way if something is mishandled or one team is doing the analysis to win it.

General Defaults: Conditionality - probably good, unless obviously abusive or warranted analysis on why its bad Consult - most likely bad, unless specific solvency International fiat - depends PICs - good States - probably bad Advantage CPs - good Conditions - most likely bad, unless specific solvency Topical CPs - good Private Actor - probably good Perf Con - depends

Disadvantages: A clear link needs to be isolated. Comparing warrants in evidence and explaining why I should prefer your evidence/arguments is good. DA turns the case and an external impact to the case will get the negative far.

Counterplans: Counterplans need to be competitive. I think PICs are great way to beat both policy and critical teams. CPs need to have a clear net benefit out of the 1NC. If you go for a CP/DA in 2NR, and want me to kick the CP for you if you lose it, tell me to. 2NC CPs are most likely illegitimate.

Critiques: If you are reading a critique, know what it says. I would rather you debate just a DA if you are just reading jargon from a pre-written block. I read some philosophy, but don’t assume that I know everything about your author. Explain and contextualize your arguments otherwise it is unlikely you will win. This means that you need to do some scenario building and specific link analysis coming out of the block. A clear role of the ballot is a good way to outline a way for me to vote. I think critiques that turn the case are good, but there are other ways to win the impact debate. Most teams seem to mishandle the perm debate - affirmatives will benefit from clearly explaining how the perm solves the critique, and has a net benefit.

Framework: I enjoy substantive debates over theoretical issues. I have no particular preference in a framework debate, but I think good analysis and comparisons between frameworks/impacts(whatever they may be on framework) is smart.

Critical Affs/Non-Topical/Performance Affs: If you are going to read a plantext you should have a clear reason to be reading one. If you aren’t reading a plan text, have some type of advocacy (Be it the 1AC speech act, the performative aspect, or whatever). Again, substantive over theoretical debates on framework will win my ballot. Role of the ballot is key for these affirmatives and isolate some reason to prefer the affirmatives way of thinking or methodological questioning over negatives positions. Same analysis applies to negative performances.

Speed: I have no issues with it.

Speaker Points: Humor will increase your speaker points, being rude/offensive will decrease them.

Flashing: Teams seem to not know how to use computers - flash speeches quickly.

Just have fun and do what you feel comfortable doing.