Matt Olson Appleton, Wisconsin I debated for 4 years at Appleton East High School, graduating in 2003.I debated locally, regionally, and around the country.I then was an assistant coach for SPASH from 2003 – 2008.During my time there, we had consistent appearances in the Wisconsin TOC out rounds, participated in out rounds at national level tournaments, and qualified 3 teams for NFL Nationals.
School Constraints:SPASH Policy Debate Judging Philosophy: I consider myself a policy maker.I’m fine with speed and have yet to encounter someone who I cannot flow, but let me say this—if you go blazing through a theory shell or topicality violation and decide later in the round to go for it, don’t be surprised if I don’t have all of the information you think is out on the flow. I fundamentally believe that in order to win a kritik debate as a negative, you either need to win the framework on how my ballot operates, and/or win how your alternative functions in a policy paradigm.This is not meant to dissuade you from running a kritik, as I have voted for plenty over the years. I tend to be pretty generous with speaker points, and average about a 28.5 for decent debates.If you get lower than a 26 in front of me, it means that you were rude or insulting.If you get above a 28.5, it means that I think you should contend for a top speaker in the tournament. I typically call for evidence after the round and will reference certain cards in my decision. Other than that, anything really goes.
Appleton, Wisconsin
I debated for 4 years at Appleton East High School, graduating in 2003. I debated locally, regionally, and around the country. I then was an assistant coach for SPASH from 2003 – 2008. During my time there, we had consistent appearances in the Wisconsin TOC out rounds, participated in out rounds at national level tournaments, and qualified 3 teams for NFL Nationals.
School Constraints: SPASH
Policy Debate Judging Philosophy:
I consider myself a policy maker. I’m fine with speed and have yet to encounter someone who I cannot flow, but let me say this—if you go blazing through a theory shell or topicality violation and decide later in the round to go for it, don’t be surprised if I don’t have all of the information you think is out on the flow.
I fundamentally believe that in order to win a kritik debate as a negative, you either need to win the framework on how my ballot operates, and/or win how your alternative functions in a policy paradigm. This is not meant to dissuade you from running a kritik, as I have voted for plenty over the years.
I tend to be pretty generous with speaker points, and average about a 28.5 for decent debates. If you get lower than a 26 in front of me, it means that you were rude or insulting. If you get above a 28.5, it means that I think you should contend for a top speaker in the tournament.
I typically call for evidence after the round and will reference certain cards in my decision.
Other than that, anything really goes.