Reed,+Matt


 * __My Background:__**

I participated in high school forensics in Idaho for four years, primarily in Public Forum and Extemp/Impromptu. However, I have some knowledge and experience of all forms of debate. I was also a competitor at the 2013 NFL Nationals in Public Forum with my partner, Harrison Agrusa. I am an alumni of the Eagle High Forensics Team, but am currently a member of Colgate University's British Parliamentary Debate Team (For those of you who don't know, Colgate is a top liberal arts school in New York). In "Parli" or "BP" I have competed at tournaments such as the Yale Inter-Varsity and took 2nd place in my division at Oxford. I am an Economics major at Colgate University, but also study psychology, political science, philosophy, and international relations.


 * __My Judging Philosophy:__**

As a former debater, and a highly competitive one, I now look back as a judge and am forced to consider what judging styles I did and did not appreciate. Essentially, I feel your pain. I will do my best not to be the judge that screws you over or makes calls with little to no RFD. I believe my role as a judge is not only to determine outcomes and moderate rounds, but also to create a positive learning environment for both experienced and beginning debaters. As such, I strive to provide helpful feedback. Unfortunately I will admit that I am quite opinionated in how I prefer debate to be done and have styles that I favor, but that will be primarily reflected in comments to debaters on ballots, not in the actual outcome of the round. I always attempt to be tabula rosa, the "blank slate" judge. This also means that I will expect you to explain your arguments to me, not just throw jargon and expect me to make the arguments for you. The ability to explain an argument is the only way to prove that you truly understand it. Overall, I judge debaters not on whether I agree with their positions or not, but on my evaluation of their skills in argumentation and powers of persuasiveness. Let the best debater win!


 * __My Judging "Paradigm":__**

Unlike most judges who are Comms, Tabs, Policymaking, Stock Issues, etc. I prefer that you run the round the way you want it to be run. I will weigh all factors fairly equally. I lean a bit on the progressive side and am fine with speed (as long as it is clear) and jargon, kritiks, unorthodox strategy, and so forth, but I do value the important ability of public speaking. Argumentation will win you the round 9 times out of 10, but don't let rhetorical skill fall by the wayside. In short, I'm a Tabs judge, if you want it simplified, but that doesn't mean that Comms plays no role at all. It's just slightly less important to me. Debate to the best of your ability, in your own style, and you will be fine.

__**Key Points:**__

1) __Formality:__ I like rounds to be fairly formal. Wait until I call upon you to speak, follow time limits, be professional, ask if your opponents are prepared, etc. Also please get Pro and Con (or Aff and Neg) correct and consistent with the format of the debate event you are entered in.

2) __Timing:__ Speaking of time limits, two things: I hate it when people go over time. And also I only give time signals when asked because I hate to be distracted from my flow and attentiveness to the round. It's best if you time yourselves.

3) __Roadmaps:__ I also like roadmaps before you begin your speech. I may even go as far as to ask what your contention taglines are before the round begins so I can "pre-flow". In addition to roadmaps, one of the most important things you can do in your speeches to improve my flowing and judging is to signpost. I cannot emphasize this enough. You must signpost which arguments you are addressing.

4) __Evidence:__ Have all evidence ready to be inspected. I often examine sources that come under question. Furthermore, "common sense" is not a valid source, nor is personal experience or anecdotal evidence. (There are a few obvious exceptions. For example, we all know Obama is the President, etc.) Cards are fine, great even, but when you read them make sure you actually state the source. As per NFL rules I would like you to state the source in this format: Last Name, Year. This greatly helps my flow and judging.

5) __Conduct:__ I hate yelling matches. Grand crossfire especially has a tendency to deteriorate into shouting. Please avoid this and stay calm and collected. Passion in speeches is ok! Ranting is not.

6) __Rate of Delivery:__ Although I am a progressive judge and am ok with speed, I prefer that debaters avoid full spreading. I understand you need to hurry to get through your arguments though. I've been there, done that.

7) __Rebuttal Speeches:__ I like impacts. They matter more to me than voters most of the time. However, if you could group those impacts into a few key, crystallized "voting points" or something, that would be much appreciated.

8) __Flowing:__ Yes, I do flow. Extensively. And on my laptop. Any good judge should always flow. Note, because you should be signposting, this means I expect you to address all of your opponents arguments. Do not drop any arguments or I will mark them on my flow as points against you. Furthermore, simply mentioning an argument is not enough. If you do not provide an actual refutation I will not have anything to flow in that box. You don't want your side of the flow to be empty, do you?

9) __Laptops:__ Laptops are fine. Seriously, they're great. I always use one when I debate. I will be using one while judging. Bonus points if you use Synergy or some other cool program (I use Synergy). However, make absolutely certain that you do not have internet connection.

10) __Framework:__ Yes framework matters to me. I expect you to respond to any frameworks presented and I will use frameworks as tools to evaluate the round. I prefer that you avoid senseless framework debates, but some meta-debating to establish the parameters of the round is both expected and helpful. It improves the clarity of the debate.

11) __Kritiks:__ I'm fine with kritiks, and will of course allow them in Policy. Unlike most judges, I would also allow them in LD or PF if they are done properly. Kritiks can lead to great debates. I even enjoy them, but don't expect me to know all of them. If you run a K, you had better explain it very well to me.

12) __At the End of the Round:__ You will win no points from me by sucking up, but decorum and presenting yourself well does matter. Shaking my hand, thanking me, and other attempts to be professional and courteous are appreciated.

13) __After the Round:__ Yeah, I'm pretty critical. A bit harsh even. But I will do my best to be a great judge and make sure debate stays the same fun experience for you that it was for me. I would be happy to talk with you after the round about any questions or concerns you may have. You are also welcome to see my flows after the round, and I would even be willing to email you copies of them upon request.