Matthews,+Evan

Woodward Academy Policy Judge Philosophy Form

Name: Evan Matthews School: Woodward Academy

1. Any predispositions on topicality that you think students debating in front of you should keep in mind? Do you tend to vote on T frequently/infrequently?

A good T debate is like any other debate. You should have specific reasons why your standards (impacts) outweigh the aff’s and explain why the entire debate should be viewed through the lens of education or competing interpretatinos (or something else), like a framework for T, controling the framing of t debates is key. On the aff, I can be persuaded to not view the debate through the lens of competing interpretations, especially if the T violation is dumb. If you believe t is genocide, cool. Make sure you have a disad to their interp that is solved by yours.

2. Any leanings as to how you feel about evaluating kritiks?

KRITIKS: Nothing wrong with running a Kritik – some things to keep in mind: 1. Make sure you explain the link. Links specific to quotes from the cards, aff/neg in-round rhetoric, ect. are very good even if not supported by evidence. 2. Explain why your framework means that the Kritik should be evaluated before the aff. Impact your framework as a reason why to vote neg. Frameworks that don’t allow the aff to weigh their impacts are w, unless you convince me otherwise, the middle ground is usually a good thing. 3. Alternative: a. AFF – Attack the alternative! This is usually absent in most Kritik rounds and the alt usually doesn’t solve all their links. In cx of the 1NC stick the negative to an alternative and make sure that the 2NC doesn’t morph it to get out of your args/solve the links. If the alt is “reject the aff” then you need to explain why that would solve their links because it doesn’t. b. NEG – You must explain the alternative and have a specific alternative that solves the links. 4. Impacts: Impact defense by the aff is crucial. The negative should explain their impacts and explain why they outweigh and internal link turns the case.

3. Any leanings as to how you feel about evaluating counterplans? What about theory issues relating to counterplans such as the legitimacy of conditionality – any predispositions or other thoughts?

CPs - When deciding process counterplans, includes consult CPs, I lean towards the aff and will be persuaded to vote on perms/theory if the aff gives me a good reason why. - The most important thing for the Aff is impacting solvency deficits. If you have evidence saying that state based policies are bad because they don’t give volunteers a “national identity” you will have to tell me why a “national identity” is key to your aff.

THEORY: - Theory debates are like any other debates – you need to impact them and explain why they outweigh. You should slow down in these debates and give me warranted reasons to vote against an arg. - Condtionality: I can be persuaded either way on conditionality, maybe a small leaning towards the aff. - Any other theory arg other than conditionality (e.g. PICS bad, agent CP’s bad, ect.) is probably a reason to reject the argument.

6. Besides the need for clarity, do you have any speed, stylistic or other miscellaneous comments? What is your policy about reading evidence after a debate?

I will read evidence after the round. I believe research is an extremely important part of debate and people should be reward for doing good research.

IMPACT CALCULUS: This will win you debates. You should explain your impacts; “pull mead” will get you absolutely no where. Explaining why your impact outweighs/turns the case is important. Essentially, you are telling me how to evaluate the debate. The most frustrating debates are the ones in which debaters don’t take their arguments the next step with impact calculus. Impact defense is very important for both sides.

Attacking qualifications and indicting evidence will get you far in the debate and will result in good speaker points.