Schnall,+Matthew


 * Matt Schnall Judging Philosophy (updated February, 2018) **

//Harvard will be my first tournament judging on the education topic. I have watched a handful of debates and have a general idea of arguments that are en vogue, but technical terminology and abbreviations will require explanation. //

The three most important things to know about debating in front of me are: First, I am an exceedingly open-minded listener; I am willing to take most any argument seriously. Second, in convincing me, argument quality is generally more important than technique. Third, debate should involve interaction — between you and your opponent; between you and me.

A short explanation:

“Taking all arguments seriously” means that I am open to persuasion on almost all issues in a debate, outside of time limits and speech order. Creative and strategic arguments tend to particularly engage me. This doesn’t mean, however, that everything you say is automatically an argument. Generally, I will only consider arguments that are complete. So, if you say x will cause y to happen (or prevent it) but do not explain why y would be good or bad, there is no argument and no response is required. Similarly, “perm do the aff” requires some explanation in order to become an argument.

In terms of truth versus tech, I appreciate technical proficiency and rhetorical skills in debate. They make it easier for me to be a good judge. Good line-by-line debate, preceded by a coherent story, is usually the best way to convince me to see things your way. Nevertheless, I will do my best to evaluate arguments however they are presented, and if your opponent persuades me on a point, the fact that you have been faster, more emphatic, more eloquent, or repeated the argument in more ways will not carry the day. In evaluating evidence, I will begin by giving weight to the supportive warrants a proponent has flagged, or the gaps articulated by the opponent. Once I am reading a card, however, if there is a gap that is plainly inconsistent with the proponent’s explanation, I will not ignore it merely because the opponent did not point it out.

Interaction means clash; it means listening; it means asking and grappling with difficult questions in cross-ex, not dodging them; it means I may interrupt your speech or a cross-ex to ask a question of my own. Even if I say nothing, I will provide a wealth of non-verbal feedback. If I frown or look puzzled, I probably don’t (yet) understand your argument; if I shake my head, I may not (yet) be convinced. In either case, try it again. You will be most successful if you treat me as an active listener who wants to understand and evaluate what you are saying, rather than a passive canvas on which to paint the same picture you painted last round.

More details:

My background — I debated in college and coached college teams with some success when I was much closer to your age than I now am. Over the last 25 years, I have stayed involved by judging somewhat regularly. I did a modest amount of coaching and argument development, and judged more heavily, over the period in which my kids went through high school debate (2010-2016).

Clarity — I expect to understand all of your words. It is not sufficient for me to hear a tag, a citation and a garble. If you are not comprehensible I will say something, but after 3 or 4 "clear"s you would be wise to keep an eye on me to see whether I am following, as eventually I will give up on verbal feedback. An argument that I do not understand will not be on my flow. If you reiterate it in a later speech, I will treat it like any other new argument.For the same reason, obscure wording is not your friend. If your tag is 40 syllables long, you probably need to simplify it.

Predispositions — I expect that a debate will involve advocacy by the affirmative team and a response to that advocacy by the negative team after which I can determine a winner using some reasonably objective standard(s). Beyond that, I will entertain debate on framework, theory, etc. I am predisposed to resolve theory disputes in favor of competitive balance and educational value, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Time limits and speech order are not negotiable — On a two-person team, each debater must deliver one constructive and one rebuttal speech, and I will not evaluate advocacy that takes place by a different person, including a partner, during that speech. Absent reasoned argument to the contrary, rebuttal speeches, including the 1NR, are limited to response to or elaboration of arguments from prior speeches; however, outside of the 2AR, I will not treat an argument as new unless the opponent so identifies it.

Incomplete arguments — As noted above, I do not evaluate an argument if it does not contain all of the elements necessary in order for it to affect my decision making (such as an argument missing a link or impact). Whether an argument is complete is of course a subject for debate, but if you think your opponent’s argument incomplete, you should point it out. If I agree, then I will treat the argument as newly made when it is completed (which might cause the argument to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, and would always allow you to make new responses after the argument is completed).

Paperless — If you are emailing or flashing something to the other team, send it to me at the same time. I will not charge prep for a reasonable amount of time spent saving the speech doc for exchange or opening the doc on the recipient's computer. If the time becomes excessive (more than about 15 seconds on either end), it will be charged in my discretion against either or both teams' prep.  Clarity — I expect to understand all of your words. It is not sufficient for me to hear a tag, a citation and a garble. If you are not comprehensible I will say something, but after 3 or 4 "clear"s you would be wise to keep an eye on me to see whether I am following, as eventually I will give up on verbal feedback. An argument that I do not understand will not be on my flow. If you reiterate it in a later speech, I will treat it like any other new argument. For the same reason, obscure wording is not your friend. If your tag is 40 syllables long, you probably need to simplify it.