Moore,+Matthew

Matthew Moore – Director of Debate – University of Central Oklahoma I have been participating in and coaching debate for over 20 years. Debaters should feel free to engage in any style of debate in front of me that they are comfortable with. With that in mind, I do have some preferences that are important in terms of how I adjudicate. Evidence: I tend not to read very much evidence at the end of debates. I will read evidence that is in dispute or that is important to the round, but only if absolutely necessary. Debaters should explain why their evidence is good and the other team’s is not. Making quality evidence comparisons in a debate is something that I usually reward with both speaker points and giving by giving the arguments based on the comparisons more credit. Topicality: I will vote on it and enjoy a good topicality debate, however, I am at times reluctant to vote for T arguments that the negative may win on the technical flow, even if they are functionally incorrect. The limits/competing interpretation debate is a good one, but I will be hesitant to vote against an aff that is a core affirmative to the topic simply because the neg has a more limiting interpretation that might exclude it. Theory: It is a useful tool, but something that should not be your primary argument throughout the debate. My basic stance on most theory arguments is that the more the other team is cheating, the more I will favor your arguments. I will rarely vote on “cheap shot” theory arguments (i.e. the perm is severance and that is a voter). I feel the “reject the argument, not the team” framework if the best way to approach most theory, but can be persuaded in some cases (extremely abusive counterplans for example) to vote on theory. Policy Strategies: I like them. The neg needs to win that the plan is worse than the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I enjoy a good disad debate. One point that is important is that the aff can win link turns even if they lose the uniqueness debate. They may not turn the DA, but it probably means zero risk of a link. I also think smart analytic arguments can mitigate the risk of many Das close to zero. Kritiks: I am fine with most kritik strategies. I prefer specific arguments applied to the affirmative rather than generic broad sweeping claims. Specific aff scenarios can often be used against “root cause” claims by the neg. The key thing for the neg to do is apply the logic of the kritik argument to the specifics of the aff. Framework: I have no particular belief that debate should be one way or the other. One thing I hate about framework debates is the insistence to read evidence from debate people about framework. There is some evidence that is fine, but cards talking about how people will quit if the game is unfair or how policy making debate causes use to become genocidal really annoys me. Simple test: if the evidence is from a web forum or a debate handbook, then you should probably not read it. If it is from a book or a peer reviewed journal, then it is likely OK. Other than that, I prefer smart arguments that are well developed. I reward debaters who exhibit hi levels of debate skill: line by line answers, clarity, evidence comparison, smart strategic concessions, even-if statements, impact comparisons, and the ability to frame the round accurately. Rude and unprofessional behavior will result in lowered points and possible losses if the behavior does not cease.