Bartholomae,+Matthew

Matthew Bartholomae- Judging Philosophy Updated 1/14 for Big Lex- I've tried to do a little research on the topic and I've read some general aff/neg strategies on the wiki, but overall I'm not that familiar with the topic I debated for two years at Boston College in Novice and JV and was heavily involved with BC debate. I am currently pursuing a law degree.

Overall, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but I, like any other, am subject to my biases.

My philosophy in a nutshell: - Arguments have claims and warrants- you need to extend and explain both throughout the entirety of the debate - conservative policy lean - contradictory conditionality bad - Ks must be explained clearly- I am somewhat familiar with literature from my experience in debate but don't assume I automatically know what you are talking about - Run what you're comfortable with. If I think you know what you're doing, you're more likely to get my ballot. Don't be afraid to run a K just because I'm more familiar with traditional policy debate. - Have fun and be polite

**Topicality:** You should be topical. I defer to reasonability, but am open to C/I debates. T is always a voter and never a reverse-voter. I'm not very sympathetic to Kritiks of T.

**Framework/Theory**: I defer to the framework that the affirmative must fiat a plan enacted by the United States Federal Government. This will be my preferred framework for every round, but that does not mean I am not open to hearing other framework arguments. Show me why yours is better for education and solvency, and I won't have a problem voting for you.

The role of the ballot is whether or not the affirmative plan should be passed. One thing I strongly dislike about debate is when a team gets up in the 1NC or the block and makes a claim that the role of the ballot is to pick the team that “best does x,” x being something that plays solely into the arguments the negative is making.

I believe the only voting issues are conditionality and topicality. All other theoretical violations are, in general, reasons to reject the argument not the team, even if these arguments are dropped.

You should slow down a bit for theory debates. This does not require you to speak slowly by any means, but be aware that I often can't understand your itemized blocks that are just a few words per line if you rush through them the way you would the text in a card.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">**Performance debate**: I’m not quite as stubborn as John Katsulas on this issue, but you’d better have a damn good reason for why you’re doing it. I won’t automatically dismiss you, but if your performance isn’t relevant to what you are talking about, all I will think is that you wasted a lot of time in the 1AC.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">**Plans:** You should read a plan. Affirmatives that go up and whine about something for nine minutes without taking a step toward doing something about it have a steep uphill climb in subsequent speeches if I am judging them.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">**Counterplans**: I can be persuaded that conditionality is bad (an argument I enjoyed going for), but you had better do a good job covering condo if you’re going to go for it in the 2AR (at least 2 minutes in the 1AR and probably all in during the 2AR.) If you are conditional, you better kick your conditional counterplan before the end of the 2NR if you choose not to go for it. I'm not going to kick it for you, especially if the aff points out that you never kicked it. I don't err on either side on most counterplan theory, except for that I think word PICs are stupid and I really don't want to vote for any.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">**Disads/Politics:** I am a huge fan of disads, especially politics disads. Most of my 2NRs have been spent going for politics (probably because Katsulas cuts the best politics cards). "The disad turns the case before the case solves..." and WHY it does this will get you far with me. Affirmative teams should attack these at the uniqueness level, and ESPECIALLY at the link level. So many teams try to link the affirmative plan to their disad using generic links which may not, and usually don’t, specifically talk about the plan. Impact turns are great too and often can function as an additional advantage to the plan.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">**Kritik**: I never really ran Kritiks in college, but am certainly open to hearing them. Concrete link is a must. You also must be able to clearly explain your warrants, as too often K debates come down to jargon and bogus claims that aren't supported by any facts. If you can explain your argument, and your block/2NR can adequately explain WHY the affirmative team links, and that your impacts outweigh theirs, I have no problem voting for a Kritik.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">Misc. items in no particular order: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">1.If you’re going to steal prep time, you should do it the old fashioned way by bringing your flows up to the podium, forgetting one “by accident” at your seat, taking a drink of water, and asking five or six times if everyone is ready for what you are about to unleash upon us. Unfortunately, paperless debate has begun to rob us of this wonderful practice. In response, many teams, especially at the novice level, will stand at the podium for about thirty seconds scrolling up and down a word document they’ve read the last six debates, and helplessly fiddle around with their Debate Synergy Timer. I don’t want to say that I have a low threshold for this sort of behavior, but it will slightly annoy me. Interpret that as you will.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">2. I have very high standards for your evidence, as I come from a school that always has a lot of fantastic, relevant evidence that generally says what the tags say it does. If there is sufficient clash on any given issue, I will not hesitate to call for evidence at the end of the round. As a matter of fact, I'll probably call for a fair amount of evidence at the end of the round. Make sure yours is good. Also, this doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to explain the cards you feel are most important during your final rebuttal speeches.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">3. Unless the other team completely drops or mishandles the arguments, I will NEVER vote on wipeout, nuclear war good, or any sort of “death/war good” scenarios. Unless you’re feeling lucky that the other team will flat-out ignore your argument, which in novice debate is somewhat likely, I wouldn’t try this in front of me.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">4. It’s impossible to offend me, so swear as much as you want. That being said, don’t be a jerk to your opponent. If you are funny I will reward your speaker points, so use this to your advantage in your cross examination, because I will be paying attention.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">5. Why don’t negative teams attack solvency more often? This is one of the most convincing arguments a negative team can run but instead people just default to irrelevant disadvantages or “capitalism is bad.” If you win that the aff cannot solve, you win the debate. That seems to me like a much easier strategy than running a bunch of stupid arguments that you don’t understand.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">6. Be clear! I don’t care how fast you speak if I can’t understand you. I can handle speed well, but too many people sacrifice clarity for speed and it hurts the strength of their speeches. This holds especially true for T and theory flows.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round. Alternatively, please email me at matthew.bartholomae@gmail.com