Matthew D.

Schnall
Judging Philosophy (updated October, 2010)

1. Background: College debater 1986-90; Assistant coach (Harvard) 1990-92; sporadic high school
and college judging since 1993.

2. Fundamental Expectations: I expect that a debate will constitute a competitive exchange

involving advocacy by the affirmative team and some response to that advocacy by the negative team
after which I can determine a winner using some reasonably objective standard(s). Within that
framework, I am generally willing to entertain debate on any nonstructural issue, including decision
criteria.

Because I view debate as a competitive, educational activity, I am predisposed to resolve theory

disputes using the criteria of competitive balance (fairness) and educational value. I can be
convinced otherwise.

An argument has not been made, and need not be answered, until you have presented all elements
necessary in order for the argument to affect my decision making. For instance, a disadvantage
ordinarily requires both a link and an impact. See 4(b) below.

3. Default Rules: Absent an argument to the contrary, I will apply the following rules —
a) The affirmative team’s advocacy must explicitly support the resolution, and the negative
team’s advocacy must attempt to refute that support.
b) The first burden of advocacy is on the affirmative team.
c) Arguments predicated on facts or assumptions about the world at large must be supported
by citation to authority unless the premises are not reasonably subject to dispute.
d) New arguments are not permitted in a rebuttal speech except in response to arguments
newly made by the opposing team since the proponent team’s last speech.
e) In a debate in which the affirmative team attempts to support the resolution by means of a
proposal of public policy, (i) the plan must be presented with reasonable specificity, must be topical, and
must be advantageous by comparison to the alternative(s), and (ii) in order for a counterplan to be entitled
to consideration the negative team must show it to be competitive with the affirmative plan.
f) Plans must be presented in a constructive speech but not necessarily the first constructive
speech.
g) Advocacy of a plan, counterplan or any other argument premised upon a fiat-like concept
(including kritik alternatives that imagine a world different from our present one) may not be conditional.

4. Feedback: I frequently provide verbal and/or nonverbal feedback during, as well as after, a
debate. Two subjects of possible feedback deserve particular mention:
a) Comprehensibility: I expect to understand every word you say in the debate. It
is not sufficient for me to hear a tag, a citation and a garble. If you are not
comprehensible I will so indicate either verbally or by tapping my pen.
b) Explanation: I expect to understand arguments when they are made. If I do
not understand, I will frown and look puzzled and perhaps stop flowing; I may even ask
you a question. When I understand, I will nod, which is an indication of understanding,
not necessarily agreement. As far as I am concerned, an argument has not been made,
and need not be answered, until I understand it.