Challes,+Matt

TL;DR Version: I’m an NFA Alum. I did Policy for ~4 years, debated at the CFL nationals 3 years in a row, and spectated an unhealthy amount of top tier debates at top bid tournaments throughout the country since 2007. Long Version: I debated Policy for about 4 years for Newburgh Free Academy from 8th to 11th grade. I’ve since judged for NFA and Bronx Science for 2 years in a row, mainly Policy judging with a side of Public Forum. I am currently working on a Bachelor’s in Information Technology at Pace University in Manhattan, with plans in minoring in International Relations. I’m also an IT technician by trade and an IR geek at heart, so if the debate comes down to either technology or geopolitics, it’s a safe bet that I have some knowledge on the matter. My paradigm is idealistically Tabular and noninterventionist with some very circumstantial exceptions. My style was pretty typically of the mid-2000 national circuit, with my main focus being a mix of policy-esque big stick impacts and pre-fiat methodological Ks (woop woop Said). HOWEVER, if you’re running it odds are I’ve run it, hit it, and/or judged it at some point, but I won’t let prior experience with an argument impact my judging capabilities within the round. I highly recommend that if you have me as a judge, you run whatever you’re most knowledgeable of and skilled at rather than trying to adapt to my style or experience. If you’re trying something new, I’m stoked to hear it so long as you give me a proper explanation of what it is and how it works within the round and/or the activity of Policy Debate. In terms of those circumstantial exceptions I mentioned, it’s more in terms of execution of certain types of debate rather than problems I have with certain arguments. TOPICALITY/THEORY: I love a good theory debate and I loathe bad ones. To me it’s probably the biggest possible spectrum in terms of clash quality within the activity. To me, a good theory debate is not too different from a good impact debate, which I understand sounds bass ackwards. You should never treat your theory/T shell as if it’s in a vacuum. Policy debaters have the problem of regurgitating their pre-written shells and blocks throughout the round while randomly poking at the opposing ones’. Good T debaters can always contextualize their own interpretation, value claims, voters, and debate framework with the other teams’. KRITIKS: There are many kinds of Ks, so don’t treat the K debate is if it’s the same thing as your Politics DA. A good K, to me, is always going to be different from other Ks. Always have a good explanation and story set up for the Kritik within context of the aff. Explain to me whether the K functions on the basis of in round performance of the Aff, or on the post-fiat level. Explain on which level the impact and alt functions on the same level or multiple ones. How does the K interact with the other arguments within the round. Is the alt a policy alternative, a hypothetical performance within debate, or just a method of interpreting the debate through a different lens? What framework should I view the debate through? Does your K function if you don’t win framework or the alt? These are things all going to be going through my head after the 1NC. Oh, and watch your tags please, if they’re longer than the highlighted text, I won’t be happy. COUNTERPLANs/DAs/CASE: Evidence and warrant analysis are SUPER important for me here. I’d honestly love if every counterplan had a straight up solvency advocate, but alas, we can’t always get what we want. Specific links or offensive arguments make me super happy, and contextualizing of specific warrants against your opponents will probably get you above a 27.5 immediately. Other than the evidentiary issues I tend to have, I feel most debaters have this down pretty well. Just make sure analysis happens and don’t repeat your 1NC/2AC 3 times. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">PERFORMANCE: Although I never did it, I hit it a lot and I’m a big fan of them so long as they are contextualized within debate in general as well as the round. With that said, I’ve certainly voted against performances on a plethora of things, from policy arguments, to kritikal framework arguments, to other performances. Just because you’re running a performance type argument doesn’t mean you automatically can’t be beaten by a disad (although I wouldn’t recommend running a DA against performances) you have to have an OFFENSIVE reason why that can’t be. And if you run performance on the neg, make sure you have an OFFENSIVE argument against the 1AC. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">If you have any questions about something I didn’t cover, feel free to email me at mattchalles@gmail.com. I also give pretty hefty RFDs whenever I can and try to give the best advice I could possibly give, and if I can’t you can always track me down either in person or online to talk. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Lastly, this is a learning activity and every judge should act as an educator when the round is over. If you have a problem with my RFD, please talk to me about it before complaining on Facebook or something. Mistakes happen unfortunately and the only way for ME to correct my own mistakes are to discuss them and be aware of them.