Gomez,+Matt

Matt Gomez

7th year policy debate Debater @ UNLV Loves debate immensely. rounds on the topic 37 **Please include me in the email chains: mattgomez22@gmail.com** **2015-2016 UPDATE:** I'm pretty telling with non-verbals some of the time. Other times I can be pretty stoic.... but yeah, if you pulled me in a round and we make eye contact at an "ah-ha" moment during the other teams speech, thats probably a good thing for you. I will almost always prefer you go for a substantive argument instead of a theoretical one in a close debate. I default to reject the arg not the team if the other team didn't say it UNLESS you make the arg that they didnt make the arg and therefore I should punish them. Sure its an unfair standard, but its a cheap way to win a debate and if its a silver bullet i'm ok making you spend the extra time to do so.

I have found a new respect for teams that will just go for framework. Not just policymaking good but... the aff is cheating. I still maintain I won't check out on framework... but the genocide DA makes a lot less sense against a procedural fairness arg than it does against a law good arg. Also.. below i mention avoiding "arguments that don't appear until the rfd"- Don't confuse this with what often ends up happening in an rfd I'll give which is figuring out how to compare the arguments that each team has won. That is to say, since so often my warning about writing the ballot for me in the 2N/AR is ignored, I'm left with each team having solidly won several things but not comparing or filtering these. At that point I have to come to a decision and I feel its my responsibility to do that work because you left it in my hands to decide. **Important:** What is and isn't allowed in the 1ar: I tend to give the 1AR a ton of leeway IF there is a reasonable interpretation of a "new" argument as an "extrapolation" of a 2AC arg. But if the 2AC forgets to make a counterplan links to politics arg and the block doesn't read new link scenarios, well then expect me to not even flow the new 1AR CP links to politics arg. Its a hard speech. The neg says new things, the 1AR is allowed to answer those new things. I am so uncomfortable with 2NR/2AR cards because I've never been in a situation where I've done it that I'll probably allow it if I deem its necessary. 1N is an undervalued speaker position. This doesn't impact my decision, just a sad truth from a sad 1N. But at least you get to give the 2AR every other debate! Right? right....? **2014-2015** **The final speeches:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Write my ballot for me. In 6 years i've heard "The 2 (AR/NR) got too caught up in the line by line" so many times its scripture- its a skill that is impossible to master and everyone will fail at it but have that moment in prep where you recenter how you see the debate. What arguments you win, what it means that you are winning those arguments. How winning those arguments affects how I evaluate the other arguments that you are losing. GIVE A REBUTTAL NOT A SECOND CONSTRUCTIVE <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Top Level:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"> The more I participate in debate the more I find myself shirking any of my proclivities and adapting to the debaters. I've participated in, watched, or judged close to every type of debate there is but still love watching something new. While I may be more comfortable in a fiat-oriented highly technical plan vs politics debate, I have definitely at points been a strictly high theory debater, and if you prefer to tailor identity-claims or step outside traditional debate norms I will listen attentively and evaluate without any preconceptions. In other words, I don't just check out for framework, but i'll vote on it.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Also, you need to defend something. Often, saying "the ballot is key to our subject formations" is not enough because I promise me voting for the other team isn't a value statement on your character or subjectivity.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Finally, I've lost many a round where I feel arguments appeared for the first time in an RFD. As a result, I will strive to do my best to evaluate strictly arguments that are made during the debate and default to the weighing mechanisms i'm given. However, should you fail to impact why "x outweighs y", I will be forced to retreat into my own opinion which may be something that angers you. Much like I've learned in my own debate expereince, this is a failure of the debater, not the judge. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**This is probably what you care most about:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I will avoid intervening as much as possible. If you do not close certain doors, expect to lose if the 2AR/2NR has exploited that fact. As a result, I tend to vote on Tech over Truth because that's what debate is IMO.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I am okay with whatever kind of debate you do. Seriously, I've read plays for a 1AC, I frequently read econ/terror advantages in my 1ACs. By definition I'm pretty sure I'm a flex debater. I LOVE impact turn debates.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">The thing I have to emphasize most is debate how you want to debate. I'll adapt to you. You'll have more fun doing your thing so i won't hamper that. But do make sure you answer their things cuz uh... well its debate. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Well thought out and properly inserted puns will cause + speaker points <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I don't like debates where cheap shots or anti-educational tricks are used but will vote for them. Speaker points won't be nearly as high.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">To be honest, I find myself more and more angry at cross-ex shiftiness and would much prefer you running head-on into arguments rather than squeezing your way around. Yes, you have a link to afro-pessimism, here's why we think optimism is good. Please just be straightforward in cross ex and defend things. Often times just being blunt and giving the answer they are expecting you to be squirmish with can surprise the other team and throw them off. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">You don't have to answer questions during prep time, just during c/x. So many teams carry on into prep. I'll allow you to just say "We aren't going to answer any more questions now" if c/x has ended. You can choose to, but are not required to.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**That being said, the following are the rules for conduct within the debate (zero flexibility):**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Do not misgender.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Do not use slurs (racial, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc)

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Do not tell the other team they should die (you will lose and you will get terrible speaker points/ this is meant for threats, not thought experiments like wipeout or the anthro alt [although come on... this isn't 2001])

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Do not steal prep. Each team needs to keep track of their own and the opponents prep time and speeches. I will time prep as well. I won't impose stringent deductions for tech problems unless it becomes unreasonable. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Constructives are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5 minutes. The order of speeches is set. Each person may give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. I don't care about in's & out's, but if you double-speak in the 1AC and the 2A is the only one talking in the 2AC and 2AR, expect the 1A to suffer speaker point wise. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**More specific things:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Topicality:** I don't know why everyone has a terrible opinion of T... I am not of this school. In fact, I went for it quite often. Perhaps this is because I haven't had alot of judging and haven't seen a bunch of terrible T rounds. So, IMPACT YOUR STANDARDS. Education, ground, and fairness are internal links. Decision-making, Advocacy, and research skills are impacts.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Affirmative team:** Counter standards and tell me what affs they'd eliminate from the topic and why those affs are good.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Negative Team:** What affs do they allow, why are they bad, what affs do you allow, why does that resolve their impacts. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Theory:** I'll evaluate any theory argument. But the further from the usual we get, the less likely you are to win.... unless its a creative position that is well-thought out. Its possible for theory to outweigh T if that debate is had. Theory should be framed as an equivalent to topicality. Impact your standards and for god's sake please don't just read a block. If you do not take the time to answer the negative's standards, I'll have a hard time voting for you. Theory is not just a cheap shot, last ditch resource. It is a weapon that must be refined throughout the round or I will not give it credibility. Btw: Negs can read whatever they want and I won't think its abusive, i'll just evaluate the condo debate based on how that theory shinanigans goes down

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Case:** The absolute most undervalued argument in HS and College Debate. if the 1NC is investing 3 minutes on case, you are well advised to check and see if its all just impact D. If its D, meh no biggie. but watch out for offense. Even if "this is irrelevant" is your answer, you should include a 2-3 second explanation of what your aff actually is about to prevent 2NC/1NR spin tricks. 2NC extensions should be like any other. But separating your offense into modules will make a clean kill much easier to see and evaluate. Impact calculus is as much a necessity here as it is on a DA. Also, negative: READ CASE OFFENSE, affirmatives aren't ready for it.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Disadvantages:** Lets begin with what qualifies as an impact card. Extinction is not a tagline. And you should actively search for an impact that relates to your internal link and actually has a warrant because I have become majorly disappointed with the quality of the Mead 92 card. I love the Disad/case combo for the 2NC or the 1NR. I think most 2A's don't do enough on case in the 2AC and if you have your modules pre-extended, you are leaps and bounds ahead by the end of the block. Impact calculus is a must and a turns the case module is probably necessary. I'm fine with new block impact modules as long as the 2NR is willing to explain them. Additionally, 1AR's should be bold(edited due to previously gendered-language) enough to impact turn new modules for most of their speech if someone reads a heg module in the 2NC. I'll buy terminal defense if its true. But generally, risk of the DA combined with case defense will get my ballot.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**CP:** I'm often compelled by permutation coupled with "can't solve the case" strategies here. but straight turning the net benefit is also useful if you want to prevent the team from going for case in the 2NR. Negative's should explain how they solve advantage by advantage and leverage their net-benefits more effectively that "perm doesn't solve because it triggers the disad". You should go slower on the text if it is a mechanism counterplan. Actor counterplans i could care less about. Generally I feel Consult, Conditions, and international counterplans are illegitimate. I think multi-plank, case specific, alternative mechanism counterplans are the greatest things to happen to debate since the 1AC.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Permutations should be impacted in the 2AC to explain why it makes the counterplan not competitive or why they otherwise matter ("perm do the cp" is not a complete argument; "perm do the cp, it's a way the plan could be implemented" is). The idea that the affirmative gets to "define the plan" is silly to me if challenged by evidence about how the plan would be implemented. However, if asked in c-x, the affirmative should probably define the plan with a, "we think the plan means..." It can be challenged in subsequent negative speeches. I am most likely to find a questionably competitive counterplan competes if the negative team is reading evidence and/or citing claims made in the 1ac or c-x.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Kritiks**: I love these just as much as i love a case/da combo. The more time I spend in debate, the more I enjoy clash of civ's debates and even K-on-K debates. I think they are interesting discussions to have, and if you are sincere with them, execute, and don't waste my time, I will reward you accordingly. I think that Kritiks require a higher level of explanation than the disad and counterplan but that's also because its the only flow you need to win. The most difficult part of a K is the alternative, so affirmatives should really press the neg on this question and the neg should invest time accordingly. I will listen to any impact turn. Moral objections need to be explained rather than outraged ranting. I equally enjoy the permutation/no link/link turn strategy. However, you must pick one. I will reward you equally for a 2AC that straight turns the K as if you had straight-turned the DA. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Perms on Ks:** "You don't get a perm because this is a method debate" is like saying T is a voter for Fairness. Its not an argument its a claim. you need a warrant and an impact to this claim for it to become an argument. Absent that, even a basic: "Yes we do" will force me to allow the perm. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Framework:** You need more than just theoretical objections but don't devalue them. Sheesh I find fairness to be more and more of an impact when you have well warranted analysis and aren't just ranting. Cards are useful. And please make them topic specific cards. Impact your standards in a way that turns their affirmative. Because they will be impact turning framework with their aff. Don't forget your interps, talk about what affs their interp justifies, and for the love of whatever deity you believe in, answer the silly impact turns. FW doesn't cause genocide. Asshole dictators cause genocide. Fw just says you cheated. oh yeah, ADMIT YOU ARE SAYING THEY CHEATED. Their aff was 8 minutes of "cheating good" - don't be squeamish. To quote ron swanson "Masonry: Building walls makes you strong. Defending them makes you stronger." I have since changed my mind and believe fairness is an impact <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">For a K affirmative team, do what I just say you'd do. Impact turn framework with your aff. I think the much better form to take is not just do the traditional outraged ranting about decision making and saying you know how to buy a house already or whatever, but talk about the way your interpretation would shape the pedagogy/critical thinking skills that debate offers. Search for a meaningful counter-interp that is capable of resolving their offense. Otherwise, be prepared to weigh your offense against whatever they say it is that you do to debate. I often find that due to poor execution of this debate a well thought out affirmative answer can dismantle framework at every level <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Feedback on my judging:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">"Gomey is the Homey" - **Alex Velto** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">"Everyone should give you the 1" - **Ahmad Bhatti** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">"You talk real good" - **Dan Stanfield** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">"Can I just say random things about you that are factually untrue?" - **Liam King**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">"Please do not quote me on that" - **Liam King**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">"Matt Gomez claims to have judged me alot in highschool. I don't remember this. It was probably okay." - **Liam King**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">"No." - **Andy Montee**