Wilson,+Matt

2015 Update:

See the 2014 Update. The only item that has changed is that I did not debate a topic like this before. But the rest applies... run what you want and have fun.

2014 Update:

For those of you filling out your Emory prefs, here's a quick update on me:

I used to be very involved in the debate world as recently as the 2011-2012 debate season. I've worked with multiple debaters who qualified to the TOC in LD and I've taught at VBI 4 times. Now, I'm a practicing attorney.

So what does that mean for you if I'm your judge:

You can still spread and run whatever arguments you want in front of me... the rest of my paradigm still applies. Only thing that may help you is to ease into your speed. Also, I won't know as much about the topic lit as some judges however I did debate similar variations of the current topic twice while in high school so I have at least some familiarity with the lit.

What I told debaters when I judged frequently was: Stylistically I don't care what you do as long as you give me a clear decision calculus. That still applies today.

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round or during the tournament breaks.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm 1. **Experience** - I debated for 4 years (2 on the national circuit) at Pensacola High School in Pensacola, FL. In 2008, I graduated from Emory University with bachelor’s degrees in philosophy and political science. In the fall, I will be a 1L at Emory Law School. 2. **General Outlook** - I want the debaters to tell me what matters in the round and I am open to nearly all forms of argumentation. However, if I had to classify myself, then I could be seen as a progressive judge. 3. **Standards/Framework** - I consider this to be the most important part of the debate. As a judge, I want the debaters to give me a clear standard with which to evaluate the round and one in which the debaters impact back to often in their speeches. Make sure you tell me which arguments matter the most and why I should look to them over others when making my decision (i.e., give me a clear decision calculus). That being said, the standard/framework does NOT have to be in a traditional value/criterion structure. 4. **Argumentation** - Try to clash with your opponents’ arguments and tell me how the arguments in the round interact with one another (i.e., make it clear how your arguments function in the debate). 5. **Speed** - In general, I am a fairly decent flower and I will try to flow as much of your case as possible but if you are going fast and are speaking unclearly (especially during the substance of your arguments), then it won't be on my flow and I can't count it for you. Moreover, clear signposting is a must especially if you speak quickly. 6. **Speaker Points** - I use speaker points to rate the overall quality of the debate and not just the persuasiveness of a debater's rhetoric. I am fairly generous with speaker points but I usually reserve the highest points for the top debaters at the tournament. 7. **Post Round** - Normally, I like to review the round closely before I make my decision so that sometimes doesn't leave much time for me to discuss the round thoroughly afterwards (but I will almost always try to do so if time permits); still I am more than happy to talk about the round during the breaks in the tournament schedule. However, if I do disclose quickly, then I would prefer not to argue about the decision. But I realize I am fallible and thus I am very open to hear your comments, concerns, and questions about the debate.

Policy Debate Paradigm Summary: Stylistically I don't care what you do as long as you give me a clear decision calculus. Debate how you want to debate and I'll do my best to judge it.

Framework: Since most of my experience comes from LD, I like good framework debates whether that comes in the form of T, Theory, Ks, or Impact Calculus. Just tell me how you want me to evaluate the round and I'll do my best to do it that way (assuming you win that your way is preferable).

Case: Since I haven't read too much of the topic literature just make sure your arguments are clear and well-explained; otherwise good cases debates are great. A clear impact calculus is very helpful.

T/Theory: I'm cool with whatever but make sure the parts of the violation are clear when you are reading them.

CPs and DAs: I really like these as well. For DAs, the stronger the link evidence the better. For CPs, I like debates on solvency and net benefits.

Ks: I'm fine with these as well just tell me how your K alters my evaluation of impacts in the round.

Speed: I should be able to keep up with you but I'll let you know if I can't. The key for me is clarity rather than speed itself - I'll yell clear if it's a problem. If I wasn't able to get everything, I won't hesitate to call for the evidence after the round.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me them whenever.