Koshak,+Matthew

I graduated from Christ Episcopal School in Covington, Louisiana in 2014. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and competed on the national circuit for about a year and a half.

**__Quick Paradigm__** To win and get 30 speaks in front of me you need to do three things. First, provide me with a weighing mechanism of some sort. I have no preference as to the form that the mechanism takes, just make the mechanism clear. Second, you need to have some form of offense and that offense should be extended in round. My threshold for extensions is low. Lastly, I need you to do some comparative weighing between your offense and your opponent's offense. The offense can take any form you want it to. I am fine with all forms of argumentation although if you have specific questions you can look further down the paradigm. Here are some things I don't like a whole lot: Just always be clear in front of me. Whether you are reading some abstract theoretical framework or a policy-making AC, just be clear about all the different parts of your case and the way those parts interact with your opponent's case.
 * Recycled frameworks (whether they're the same old policy making frameworks that everyone is using or some recycled K framework cut from articles and books you've never heard before)
 * Arguments read straight from backfiles you didn't cut
 * Debates with little to no comparative weighing
 * Not giving me voters at the end of your last speech
 * Debates with competitive framing that has no framing debate or in which the framing debate is really muddled.
 * 

__**Speed**__ If you are clear I am fine. I will yell "clear" as many times as I need to before you are clear enough to understand and if it is something else that is causing me not to be able to understand you (i.e. if you are going too fast or if you are speaking too softly) I will say something like "slower" or "louder".

**__Extensions__** I have a pretty low threshold for extensions. I just want to know where it is on the flow, I want a short summation of the argument, and I want you to tell me why it matters in the round. If it is a contested piece of evidence, you may want to go more in depth and extend the warrant, but if it's flat out dropped, you shouldn't spend a ridiculous amount of time on the act of extending itself. Impacting out is the most important part of this process to me.

__**Policy-Making**__ <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Just be super clear about the parts of your case. Slow down on texts and important tags. I enjoy judging these rounds when they are done well but I think the whole "race to extinction" can get really old when everyone uses the same impact cards that don't really have much of a warrant, so just cut well warranted impact cards (that probably don't have to impact to extinction) and you can avoid my biggest pet peeve of larping. Just be super super clear when you are impacting out and weighing between impacts since that should be the most important parts of debates like this.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**__K Debate__** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Don't rely on any knowledge you assume I have about what you're running. If you are running something critical, have an interesting and unique link story, a well-thought out framework, and a fleshed out alt (so don't just run a link of omission and some under-explained alt with a recycled framework). Please don't run something from backfiles you hadn't seen until ten minutes before this round or that you haven't actually cut anything in. You should be fluent enough in the literature so that you can explain it in your own words to me as the judge. If you are engaging in this type of debate, you are going to have to be doing some clear framing and you should be fleshing out the link(s) you are making. Also, I think critical affs (especially post-fiat critical affs) are really cool and should be run more often in debate and if you are running arguments like that, just be sure to do the framing work that that requires.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**__Theory__** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">So, I never ran much theory as a debater. That being said, I harbor no ill-will towards theory. My threshold for answering theory goes down as the theory becomes more and more tedious and frivolous. I default competing interps. The easiest way to win a theory debate in front of me is to be really clear about the link story and to really crystalize the debate at the level of the standards. I tend to think fairness is an internal link to education but that it isn't a compelling voter independent of some link to education (however I can be persuaded otherwise). I am not the biggest fan of the strategy of running 3 or 4 shells to suck time but if you win one of the shells then I will vote for you.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**__Miscellaneous__**
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I don't like it when a debater who is clearly better than their opponent beats them into submission. Be respectful, please. The entire point of this activity is education and no one is educated when they get needlessly destroyed. If you do this, it will reflect in your speaks.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I don't vote for morally reprehensible arguments. A lot of ambiguity is usually attached to that statement, but I will make it clear. If the argument you are making makes the debate space hostile for someone else, I will not vote for it. This doesn't mean I won't vote for skep, but I won't vote for "racism good", "sexism good", etc.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I have no preference when it comes to in round composure.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">You should have something to give your opponent during round for them to read off of. I don't care if you flash the case, e-mail it, print it out, or write it by hand, there should be something for your opponent to look off of.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">No eating or drinking in CX time. That's super rude and it wastes time and I don't like it. You can eat or drink at any other point in the round.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I'm fine with flex-prep and I will try to pay attention during it but I can't promise I will so you should probably try to get concessions during CX time.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I'm not a fan of blippy spikes and arguments. I can't flow them well and if I don't flow them they don't exist. You probably shouldn't run a strategy that relies heavily on these kinds of arguments.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I give speaks based on strategy. I start at a 28 and you move up or down depending on how you approached clash in the round and the strategies you go for.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Have fun and be substantive. I don't really care on what level the substance exists. Be courteous and don't make me feel uncomfortable with your treatment of each other and everything will be pretty good.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Shout out to the greatest paradigm of all time: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sharma%2C+Arun