Reichert,+Matthew


 * EMAIL CHAIN IS PREFERRED: reichert003@gmail.com **


 * Experience- Cathedral Prep Debate 2003-2007 **
 * Coaching Experience- Cathedral Prep Debate 2008-2011 (left to pursue Law School.) **
 * 2015- Present. **
 * Currently: Corporate Counsel for an international shipping/logistics company. **

__//** I believe that the debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the USFG takes a topical action on the topic. If this isn’t your style of debate, you probably don’t want me in the back of the room **//__

**Topicality-** a well-argued T debate is always fun to judge. I default to competing interpretations and evaluate it on an offense/defense paradigm, however that is only my default and am easily persuaded to evaluate the debate otherwise as long as you win why I should. That being said, even though I default offense/defense I differ from many judges in that I do not believe in the "there is only a risk they don't meet" jargon. I believe that meeting any interpretation is a yes/no question, and if the negative is not compelling enough for me to believe the affirmative doesn't meet I see no reason to reject the affirmative. From the negative I find arguments for context, grammar, and predictability FAR more compelling than limits and ground, and from the affirmative I often am most persuaded by affirmative ground, innovation/creativity, and critical thinking arguments. T is 99% likely a voting issue, but again I can always be persuaded otherwise.

**Counterplan –** Counterplans are tight. Conditionality is good. Probably should have a solvency advocate with your Counterplan but not a deal breaker. Important thing to understand about me in the back of the room, in a world where the 2nr goes for a Counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo as well unless told to by the negative.

**Theory-** I believe that theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team ALWAYS - there is rarely if ever a scenario in which I would be willing to reject a team for an argument they made. I think if conditionality is bad, it is a) a reason to stick the negative with the counterplan and b) if i reject the team, abuse must be proven. EDIT: I don't buy the distinction between 1 conditional CP and multiple - if conditionality is good because the status quo should always be an option/because the aff's burden is to prove the plan is a good idea, not that it is better than the CP, then multiple counterplans are equally legitimate.

**Disadvantages –** Big fan of disads, love hearing a good politics debate. Turns the case and outweighs the case arguments are always a plus. I do not think that offense is a must on disads. I don't know exactly why some judges in the debate community believe that no offense on a DA= a neg win, because I think that the majority of DAs in debate are quite contrived, at least in comparison to the aff, thus defensive presses on internal links and impact uniqueness are especially compelling to me. That being said, I always think offense helps the cause a great deal and it is strongly recommended you focus a bit of time on establishing offense against DAs. I find turns the case arguments as well as timeframe arguments compelling tie-breakers, and vice-versa for the aff.

**Criticisms –** I do not go for criticisms often as a debater and are not familiar with them. I do not read this literature base, which means I am not familiar with the particular jargon your criticism might entail. When it comes to framework, getting to the middle of the road is a good idea and persuasive. There must be a reason to reject the affirmative. Negatives can't simply say that they did something good; they must prove the affirmative definitively prohibits that from occurring. Also you must prove that the impacts of the criticism outweigh the impacts of the case. Even though you inform me that plan never passes it still doesn't make the good things of the case disappear. I always believe even in the world simulations - the affirmative usually gets to weigh the case at all time. When running a criticism you should give the affirmative the benefit that they at least get the beneficial result they want. I think the more grounded your link arguments are within the affirmative are better to make your point than general states/development link categories that are resolutionally bound. Finally, I believe all criticisms should have some sort of stable alternative, not necessarily that it is a policy option, but something concrete enough for an affirmative to be able to garner offense against. If they so choose to. I have found myself judging a lot of critical debates this year and tend to vote negative in these debates more due to lack of affirmative refutation against these arguments rather than the strength of the negative position itself.


 * Performance**- Any risk of the current framework of debate being educational/good is an easy ballot. I think these debates are an attempt by teams to not research the topic and still want to compete. If you have a reasonable relation to the topic and the opposing team has ground to clash you're on the right track. Other than that I am probably not your guy.

**Wanky arguments-** stay away from these. E-Prime, Time Cube, Wipeout, etc. are not very compelling arguments to me. It's not to say I won't vote on them, but my threshold is as high as they come and your speaker points will suffer because of it. So, this is your warning. I just think these arguments dodge the question of the debate and/or are illogical decisions for a policymaker to consider, which moots the entire purpose for debate.

**Note about paperless debating**--I prefer an email chain with me included whenever possible. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in paperless debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are underhighlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of preptime taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. For me, prep time is running until the flash drive is given to the other team and then it stops and becomes judge time. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then I prefer that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech. I don't understand why people exchange paperless speeches that do not contain evidence.