Watters,+Matt

I debated for 3 years for Hopkins High School in Minnesota. I competed on the local and national circuit.

General thoughts: I prefer substantive and interesting debate, and strongly dislike the use of bad arguments for strategic advantage. I think the best debates occur when debaters each form their own coherent, positional advocacy opposed to a blippy spread (note: blips are not arguments).

Speed is generally not a problem as long as you are clear. If you are being unclear, I will yell “clear” once. If you do not adjust, your speaker points will likely suffer. The same goes for speed; I will yell “speed” once with no penalty and then you are on your own. If it is not on my flow, I can’t vote on it.

Theory: I will evaluate all theory arguments, but even if you win the round, do not expect exceptional speaks if you are running it against potential abuse or to out-tech your opponent. Given current trends in theory debate, I'm receptive to RVIs. Theory (preferably) should not be a no risk issue.

Case structure: I don’t believe the value/criterion model is necessary, but a clear method of evaluation is (and a value/criterion structure is perfectly acceptable). Burden structures, DAs, CPs, etc. are all fine. I am not well versed in most critical literature, and critical arguments should be explained very clearly. If I don’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.

The paradigm debate: I most frequently debated under the comparative worlds paradigm, so that is what I am most comfortable with. That said, how I evaluate the round is established by the debaters, so truth-testing, comparative worlds, and offense/defense strategies are viable in front of me. However, if the method of evaluation is contested, reasons to prefer each paradigm should be articulated.

Speaker points are awarded based on level of strategy and clarity of argumentation (telling me how arguments interact, quality of weighing).

I don’t care if you sit, stand, dress-up, etc.