Gerber,+Matt

Dr. Matt Gerber Director of Debate Baylor University 'The 254'

I like debaters who are opportunistic, and who exploit the mistakes made by the other team. The best debate teams are usually not the ones who overwhelm with speed or skillful persuasion; the best debate teams are the ones who avoid making the big mistakes. I like debate teams that are decisive, and not afraid to go “all-in” if their opponents drop the ball.

Be clear, especially in a theory debate. Slow down a little, because even the greatest flows in debate history can’t write down blippy theory jargon at 200mph. Even if it was flow-able, is that really good debate? I think not. That all being said, I tend to give the neg some leeway on the theory stuff…I like crafty CP/DA strategies, and I like well-researched case debates. I think debating the case is a lost art…I reward debaters who make nuanced and sophisticated case arguments, and who actually go for them in the 2NR once in awhile.

Topicality is an under-valued strategic weapon. Framework is usually weak sauce.

Be nice, but not too nice. There is a difference between being assertive and argumentative (good things) and being an ass (a bad thing). Be yourself. Do your thing.

Critical arguments are fine. I prefer specifics over generics, as with most arguments. I am well-read (and published) in the areas of public memory, pragmatism, security/IR, and public diplomacy....if any of that helps. That all said, I named my daughter 'Reagan', who also happens to be my favorite U.S. President.

There are many ways to make arguments. I will try to be open-minded and objective in my decision-making. If those parameters are called into question during the debate, I am more than willing to listen, but those assumptions do function as a default if not fully debated out...so, consider yourself warned. I guess that means I will listen to most anything you think is an argument, as long as you are making arguments. There are lots of ways to make arguments.