Reichle,+Matt

experience: high school 4 years cx/ld debate at laredo, tx united college: 3 years policy at the university of texas at san antonio coaching: 1 year coaching policy at the university of texas at san antonio, currently coaching my sixth year as director of debate for reagan high school in san antonio, tx.

(updated sections are marked with a *)

I proclaim, being of sound mind and body (arguably) that I am making a concerted effort to be "in the round" at all times from here on out (i suppose this is my jerry maguire manifesto/ mission statement moment). i understand the amount of time that everyone puts in this activity and i am going to make a serious effort to concentrate as hard as possible on each debate round that i am lucky enough to judge. this year i am going to approach each round with the same enthusiasm, vigor, and responsibility that i afford members of a writing group--and as such i am going to treat the post round discussion with the same level of respect. perhaps this will become infectious.
 * proclamation:

Ultimately the reason why there is no science fiction short here—in the place of a judging philosophy—is because debate is about the debaters, not about the ways in which I can inject my spirit back into the debate format. That being said there are a few things that you might want to know about me.

I debated for four years in the mid to late nineties in high school and three years at UTSA. I have debated ‘policy’ debates in several different formats. Because I ended my career on the ‘left’ of the debate spectrum is in no way an automatic endorsement for all out wackiness devoid of any content. That is not saying that I don’t enjoy the ‘critical’ turn in debate—quite the opposite, I like nothing better than a debate that effectively joins form in content.

*I prefer explanation and examples in debates, these make sense to me.

*strategy is also something that i reward, but i want to know that you have either thought about your particular strategy in terms of winning the debate round--and i don't mind knowing that you accident-ed your way into a perfect 2nr/ar choice. either way: the story of the round is important to me and i would like to know how the individual parts of a round fit together (how you understand them). i think this is part of effective communication and it's just helpful for me in case i am missing something. illumination brought to me (by you) seems to be the crux of getting a decision that is favorable (to you) with me in the back of the room.

*I flow. I may not flow like you, but I keep a flow because my memory isn’t the best and because at some point I was trained to… it just kind of helps me. But I flow in a way that helps me arrange my thoughts and helps me to keep what is said in the debate limited to what is actually spoken by the debaters.I flow the entire round (including the text of the evidence) unless i know a piece of evidence that you are reading. That being said… If I can’t understand you (because of lack of clarity) I can’t flow you. also, some differentiation between tag, card, and the next piece of evidence would be great.

topicality—i don't know why teams don't go for topicality more... it is the correct strategy (when done well in most rounds). In high school I went for T in the 2NR every round. In college I went for T (seriously) no times in the 2NR. While I give Aff’s lenience on reasonability—there is something hot about a block that just rolls with topicality.

*Counterplans/ disads. Sure. Why not. Win net benefits. Answer the perm. Make it competitive. Win your framework (if an alternate framework for evaluation is proposed by the aff). more and more i find the quality of the evidence read for most cp and da's to be shaky at best--not that there isn't great evidence on political capital and the role of popularity in certain aspects of the political economy as it pertains to pending legislation... i just find more and more that this evidence is either written by some rand-o with a blog or is great evidence that is under-hi-lighted. please read good evidence, not evidence that can be written by one of my children on the cartoon network forums section.

Performance/ The K/ the Crazy/Whatever you want to call it: Do what you have to do get your point across. If you need me to do something (see the way I flow) let me know and unless it is something that makes me have to take a bath between rounds—I will comply willingly. Just warrant your argument somehow. As before, this is in no way a full on endorsement of ridiculousness for the sake of ridiculousness. Win your framework/ impacts and you should have no problem. Please help me out with the role of the ballot. Please.

*theory: i need to flow. i can not flow a theory debate where the shell is read at the speed of a piece of evidence--tag line speed at the fastest for theory, please. also if you have no differentiation between tag speed and card speed (good for you) but people are only pretending to flow what you are saying.


 * paperless issues: i would like to think that i reward paperless debate but i am not a fan of the amount of time that it slows down debates (because of stolen prep time and lack of paperless protocol)--prep time is up when the speaker's jump drive is out of their computer. also, completely understandable if you jump the other team a few more cards than you are going to read but please do not jump the other team an entire file or seventy cards in random order. learn to send evidence to a speech document.

it becomes harder every year for me to think of a way to encapsulate how i view debate in a way that somehow gives a useful suggestion to debaters. it seems that each philosophy follows a formula--assure everyone that you were a good debater up to and including past experience, make sure they know that you are either open or receptive to all types of argumentation while still harboring resentment to anything progressive and different from what is deemed acceptable by personal debate standards, which is then followed by a list of ways the judge hopes everyone debates.

while the formula will apply to some extent i would like to say that i am in every way honest when i say this: do what you do best and read the arguments that you prefer in the style that you prefer in front of me. do this and i say unto you that it will do less harm than running around in circles in round for the sake of a paradigm. be the debater that you are, not who you think i want you to be.

that being said; this is who i assume you should be: kind. be kind to your opponent and avoid shadiness and we’ll have no problems. there is probably a list that defines shadiness but it follows the same rule as inappropriateness: if you have to ask if something is shady--it is.

have fun. have a nice year.