Goldberg,+Matt

Updated February 2016 (Harvard tournament)

Matt Goldberg Needham High School (Needham, MA) Harvard College '17. Concentration in Computer Science. Secondary in Statistics.


 * Note:** I probably haven't seen the topic before, so I will probably have little knowledge of the topic beyond a layperson. This is the case for Harvard 2016.


 * Debate experience:** I debated LD for four years (2009-2013) at Needham High School in Needham, MA. I debated a ton of circuit tournaments my junior and senior year, and am fine with most to all circuit concepts (i.e. speed, theory, etc.). I was a big philosophy debater; I love skep (pure, nuanced skep more than skep triggers, though I'll still gladly vote on a skep trigger if won), as well as any other nuanced philosophical argument. That said, **in front of me,** **run what you want to run.** If you're a util debater, run your util. I'd rather hear your best argument (that you're willing to break) than an worse argument that you'll think I like.


 * Currently:** I'm an undergraduate (class of '17) at Harvard College in Cambridge, MA.

• I'll vote on pretty much anything that **has a decent warrant** and **I have on my flow**. Only exception: I probably won't vote on disclosure theory unless the tournament mandates disclosure or the shell is 100% dropped. Just TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD VOTE ON, WHY I CAN VOTE ON IT, AND WHY I SHOULD VOTE ON IT. • **DON'T BE AN ASSHOLE IN ROUND.** PARTICULARLY, DON'T BE OFFENSIVE. I won't feel bad about dropping you with <10 speaks. • Speed: DISCLAIMER 1: I have not debated since 2013 and since then I have not heard a debate beyond a tournament or two per year. So please understand while I dealt with speed as a debater, I may be much less used to it now. Disclaimer 2: If it's not on my flow at the time the argument is made, I cannot and will not vote on it. Disclaimers aside, I like to think I'm fine with speed. If you're going too fast or you're too unclear, I will yell "clear". I won't deduct any points for this unless it gets to an absurd number of yells (like if I've yelled "clear" 6-7 times and I still can't understand you). • Theory: I'm fine with theory, although it is probably worth it to slow down for small, tricky arguments. Remember, if I don't get it on my flow, then I can't vote on it. • Tricks: I'm fine with tricks, although note that the shittier the argument, the less likely I'll vote on it. If it's a cool, new, interesting trick, your chances are much higher than if it's some boring trick I've heard a million times. Basically, if it has a **solid warrant** and **a reason it means you win**, I'll vote on it. 90% of the time, this will require more than 1 sentence. • K's: I'll vote on K's, but I definitely wouldn't call myself a "K judge" or a "K hack". I usually either don't understand or don't agree with the critical literature, and I'm not a huge fan of the K style of debate. I'll listen to it, but if I don't understand it, it's unlikely that I'll vote for you in that round. I think a thing that really helps K debaters in this situation is ** give a summary of your argument ** after you read it; that way, I can get a full understanding of your advocacy. • **Speaker Points:** I'll consider how well you're making your arguments, how technically sound you are, and how well you handle you're opponent's arguments. I love good tech debaters who leave nice, clean flows. Overall, this mechanism tends to converge to whether I think you should break (and if so, how far you should advance). You might not get a 30; my average is probably around a 28.3. If I think you should break, you'll get a 28.8+.
 * Paradigm:**

Feel free to ask any questions you have before the round, whether in the room before we start or, if you can find me, in the cafeteria or whatever the tournament uses for its primary meeting area.