Moore,+Matt

History: Debated 4 years at Ruston High School (2003-2007); attended a few national tournaments and the Dartmouth Debate Institute; some judging experience post-high school

Paradigm: Policy Making

Explanation: I will evaluate each round as if I am a policy maker trying to make a decision. Using the arguments presented in the round, I will weigh whether or not the affirmative plan is one which should be implemented. Unlike some definitions of policy making, I believe that this mindset allows both for traditional policy arguments (counterplans, disadvantages, etc.) as well as kritiks. Kritiks are, after all, just an argument that the plan should not be implement because of the mindsets or stated purposes behind the implementation. One kind of kritiks that run into problems with my framework are language kritiks. I think it is important for the negative who runs a language kritik to strongly articulate why in-round language should take precedence over proposed policy, or better yet, how the use of language affects policy making.

Topicality: I don't have a problem with teams running topicality arguments, but I am reluctant to vote for negatives who utilize arbitrary definitions (e.g. establish = create). If you don't actually convince me that the affirmative is truly not topical, you are going to have to really dominate topicality for me to vote on it. I also don't have much sympathy for reverse voters on topicality.

Kritiks: Kritiks usually involve a deeper level of reasoning than typical policy arguments. Therefore, I need to understand the argument, and I need to feel that you understand the argument. You cannot hide behind big words and technical jargon. I do not condemn those things, but they need to fit a coherent story and actually make sense in the context of your argument.

Theory: I lean toward rejecting the argument not the team unless you can prove that the only appropriate remedy for the alleged abuse is to vote the team down. I tend to think the negative has the right to run counterplans conditionally but a convincing argument could persuade me to vote otherwise.

Speed: I have experience with speed, but I am beginning to question the benefit of speed reading to policy debate. I have sympathy for teams that are not as fast and prefer a well reasoned and well articulated debate to an expansive flow. In all cases, clarity is a must. If it's not on my flow, I cannot evaluate it. Therefore, I encourage debaters to slow down on topicality, theory, and tags.

Final Note: What I have outlined above are my preferences and the mindset that I bring into a round. I must ultimately evaluate the round as it is debated. This means that I can be persuaded to vote in a manner different from the preferences I have indicated. However, this will naturally require more work and that these arguments be won in a convincing manner.