Byrne,+Matt

I’m Matt Byrne. I graduated in 2007 from Eden Prairie High School after debating LD for four years both within Minnesota and on the national circuit. I qualified to the TOC and Nationals during my senior year.

I prefer rounds that are both substantive and strategic. I think that too often debaters forsake substance in an attempt to be sneaky, and fall victim to the belief that strategy involves avoiding the core clash of the resolution in order to confuse the opponent. You don’t need to run something crazy to outsmart your opponent and impress the judge; some of the best rounds I’ve watched involved debaters taking seemingly stock arguments and running them in an interesting and nuanced way.

It is your responsibility to develop and articulate the lens through which you want me to evaluate arguments. I will default to using the criterion that has been better defended, but I am open to using other evaluative measures if they are warranted. As with most judges, debaters who class, weigh, and impact make me happy.

I’m generally open to any kind of argumentation, so long as it is well explained and sufficiently warranted. Theory is fine, but I have a decently high threshold for voting on it, so if you run it make sure you present me with a clear and cogent abuse story. I’ll vote for a prioris, spikes, pre-standard arguments, burdens, and the like if I have to, but don’t think that just because you label something “a priori” you can forgo fully developing it as an argument. I’m open to critical arguments, but to be perfectly honest I’m not terribly well versed in the literature they come from, so don’t assume I know what you’re talking about just because you referenced the name of a famous author. I’ve been only minimally involved in debate since I graduated (I’ve judged a handful of times and had a brief stint as an assistant coach in North Carolina). This is relevant to you for two reasons: (1) if there’s any new lingo or type of argument that has become popular in the last three years, I will not be familiar with it, and (2) my flowing is rusty. I’m open to you speaking as fast as you want, but if I can’t understand you and flow your arguments, chances are you won’t win. I will yell “clear” or “slow down” if I’m struggling to comprehend you.

If you have any other specific questions, don’t hesitate to ask me before the round starts.