Matuszeski,+Matthew+(Matt)

Experience/background: I debated two years for Millard North High school on both the local and national circuit and I debate college Lincoln-Douglas at University of Nebraska Lincoln. Most of my experience is in postmodern and critical literature, but I’m comfortable with pretty much all styles of debate.

General notes: For case extensions I need you to reiterate the claim, warrant and impact of each card, and not just extend the card author with your tag line at the top. I don’t care what you do with prep time, if you use all of it fine, and if you don’t that’s also fine; it won’t affect your speaks. I’m fine with flex prep, but your opponent can choose not to answer. Please do not post round me, my decisions are final, I have absolutely no problem with answering questions though as long as you’re respectful. I default to comparative worlds, unless you give me a reason to prefer truth testing or some other metric to evaluate the round. I wouldn’t consider myself to be an incredibly technical judge, but I can probably follow the intricacies of most arguments SO LONG AS YOU ARTICULATE THEM WELL.

Speed: I can handle pretty much any level of speed so long as you are CLEAR. If you ask me to shout clear beforehand if I can’t understand I will do it once, after that anything I miss is on you. I also appreciate when debaters slow down for the tags of their cards as well as author names, and if you’re going blazing fast I wouldn’t mind being included in an email chain.

Theory: Not a big fan of theory, especially when it’s frivolous (which seems to increasingly be the case), but I’ll evaluate it like I would any other argument. I won’t automatically layer procedural arguments above substance unless you tell me why I should. I don’t mind theory in situations of obvious abuse.

Kritiks: Cool with Kritiks. They’re what I’m most familiar with.

T: I have no presumption that the resolution is true; it’s your job to tell me why it is true, good or another reason to vote. Once again I don’t automatically evaluate T above substance, unless you give me a reason to.

Speaks: I’m pretty generous with speaks, and honestly it’s too subjective for me to lay out an exact scale for what speaks I’ll give you based on certain actions, I usually award points based on how much I enjoyed the round, as well as how well you debated. So long as you aren’t offense your speaks will be fine, but if you are rude to your opponent or otherwise offend I have no problem dropping your speaks. If you have any specific questions, I have no problem answering them before round.