Hey guys!

I'm so glad that you guys have decided to participate in such an amazing curriculum. I started to debate my junior year and got the fantastic opportunities to compete at state in policy and congress, as well as NSDA nationals for Original Oratory! I currently get to compete on an amazing Parliamentary team at UT Tyler with the most incredible coach who has raised several national title holders. I love debate, and you should too. As for my paradigm here it is!

Policy; I think the most important thing in the debate is education, Don't focus on winning or losing but what you take away from the debate, I think it is the affs job to prove that the world is worse than the status quo and if this is successful I will vote aff. However, if the neg proves otherwise, I would vote there. But other than that, I am open to any debate, I love K's as a parli debater, showcase what you have!

Congress; Congress can be aggressive, passionate, confident, and reasonable and you will succeed.

Extemp; Really focus on your movement and language throughout the speech, it really gets my attention, but also be organized in your speech and stances.

speech events; the more passion the better

super traditional stock judge. In the end I vote on the case that solves the most harms and minimizes the most negative impacts.

Director of Forensics @ Athens HS (2023 - Present)

DoD at Austin LBJ ECHS (2022 - 2023)

Texas Tech Debate 2019-2021 (Graduated)

Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019

whonea@athensisd.net

Please have specific questions about my paradigm if curious. Just asking, "what is your paradigm" is too broad of a question and we don't have time before a round to run down every little detail about how I feel about debate.

Speed - I think there is a place for spreading, I have judged and debated against some of the fastest debaters in the country. In a UIL setting, I would prefer you not to spread. I think this allows us to maintain the accessible nature of the circuit. For TFA, NSDA, or TOC debates, go for it. I think in any type of debate slow down for tag lines and key analytical arguments, especially voters in the rebuttals.

TLDR: My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round.

Policy -

MPX - I have no preference for types of impacts. Make sure your internal links make sense. Impact Calculus is must in debates. Also impact framing is necessary when debating systemic vs. existential impacts.

Affs - Read one..... Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters. Whether its war, structural violence, etc.

K Affs - The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.

Performance - The performance needs purpose. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate and how it should shape my decision making calculus.

T- I default that the aff is topical. The neg has the burden to prove otherwise. I default to competing interps weighing offense in the standards level debate. I often find that competing interps and reasonability require essentially the same amount of judge intervention. Competing interps relies on a judges individual metric for "how much offense" is needed to win an interp, this is mirrored by "how much of a we meet" is needed to throw out T.

FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad. You probably have little risk of winning a collapse of debate impact. K's have been read for decades and yet, here we are. Probably should go for a more proximal, in round education lost scenario.

DA - The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.

PTX - Needs to be very specific, we are in an election cycle right now. Generic election projections are unlikely to persuade me. Please make sure your evidence is up to date.

CP - I like counterplan debate. Make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has. The CP needs to AVOID the link to the net benefit, not SOLVE it. If the CP solves the link, the permutation probably does as well.

K’s - Don’t assume I know your author. I have experience reading CAP (Marx & Zizek), Agamben, Foucault, Bataille, Baudrillard, Halberstaam, Butler. I have a preference for identity arguments when i debate but as long as your K provides a logical FW and competes with the aff it should be fine.

Theory - I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage.

LD

I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I prefer traditional LD debate and do not typically enjoy policy arguments being brought over into this event.

PF

My Experience is in judging TOC circuit level PF. Provide voters and impact calculus. For online debates PLEASE establish a system for question during Grand Crossfire. There have been too many debates already where everyone is trying to talk at the same time on Zoom and its frustrating.

My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 23 years and I am an NSDA Three-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.

I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.

I believe Speech & Debate, in all forms, is primarily a communication sport. The two greatest takeaways from your time here into your future life will be having learned how to reason out an issue, and how to present your arguments in a clear and organized way.

Because of this, the most important part of my paradigm is how much I HATE speed/spread debate. If I can't understand what you're saying, it's as if you never said it so far as my ballot is concerned. Just talk to me like a normal person!! Tell me what you're thinking! Give me an argument to follow along with, and try not to sound like the end of a medicine commercial.

I also value professionalism a great deal. You don't have to be stiff and formal at all times, but I dislike the use of casual language in speeches ("Dude," "man," etc), and I HATE the use of swearing, personal attacks, and interruptions. Part of the value of Speech & Debate is fostering productive conversations between people who disagree -- and in these divisive times, the more we can listen to and respect each other, the better.

As far as my paradigm in CX/Policy Debate, I am an old-fashioned stock issues judge. In the absence of that, I will generally default to a policy-maker standpoint. I very much appreciate a good wrap-up at the end, in either of those formats.

As far as specific arguments/lines in CX/Policy Debate, I only have a few particulars.

I categorically reject the argument that no new arguments should be allowed in the 2NC. That is the negative's right under the format and rules, and has been for 50 years.

I tend to have a very high threshold for Topicality. Generally speaking, unless a 1AC is clearly unreasonable and outside of the topic area, I probably won't give a Neg ballot on that basis. If you're making the argument for strategic reasons I get that, but I probably won't vote on that basis unless the 1AC is pretty egregious.

Likewise, I tend not to buy most arguments that lead to "the end of the world." In all of recorded history, literally nothing has ever led to humanity's extinction. The matter at hand in the round probably won't either, and overstating your argument so massively is rhetorically blustery.

Finally, as a stock issues/policy judge, I HATE kritikal theory arguments of any type. You’re not gonna win trying to tell me your opinions on Marx or Foucault or Derrida or Kendi. This is Policy Debate, not LD or philosophy club

I am a pretty basic judge. I like good arguments and good speaking. I prefer stock issues, but I know that I'm old fashioned and most students don't really do that anymore. Don't talk too fast, to the point where I can't understand you or am concerned about your health and safety. If you do so, I will put my pen down, and anything I don't write down didn't happen. Seriously, don't spread. As far as arguments go, I'm pretty good with anything. Don't just read a bunch of numbers or words and expect me to make the connections to your case or your opponent's. Explain why your statistics matter and why your arguments outweigh your opponent's. I also like the structure. Tell me you're on advantage 1, or you're covering inherency, etc. It really helps. Otherwise, I'm just here to listen to what you have to tell me.

I believe in a debate that relies more on content than it does flashy tactics. Being able to think and respond appropriately, while picking up on the little details of the opposition's case so that those errors/flaws/vagueness can be countered is the sign of a proficient debater.

Spreading is impressive, but only if it is understandable, precise and has the markers that make the case easy to follow. Trying to confuse your opponent doesn't help if it makes the judge unclear about your stance.

Please present your case with confidence. Please present your case with confidence. Please present your case with confidence.

Also, don't apologize. Present your case with confidence.

Part of debate is acting. Know your role and don't break it. I tend to lean towards cases that are presented with individuality and some sort of distinction from the rest of the debaters who have their noses in their cases. Have a personality. Be confident. And for the love of Bob, DO NOT treat your opponent as if they are subhuman in comparison with you. A haughty attitude doesn't prove you're superior in a debate any more than playing with a slug makes you the owner of a flea circus. Please know the difference in confidence and cockiness.