Matt Moorhead ParadigmLast changed 8/5 2:10P CDT
he/him, appleton east 19'
email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
conflicts: appleton east, newsome db, brophy ct, northwood ys, enloe tc, greenhill mk
hi! i'm matt. i love this activity and #shortparadigmgang so i’ll make this simple. i have a lot of opinions about debate, those opinions rarely factor into my decision. i'm probably more tab than you think i am, i don't have the audacity to say that x argument can't be read in front of me. i don’t like intervening and put the baseline of argumentation at not cheating, not being offensive, and having a claim, warrant, and impact. my paradigm = a way to get better speaker points, not an all-or-nothing interpretation of debate.
here’s some information that might guide your strategy:
1. i debated for four years for appleton east in wisconsin. i did national circuit ld and dabbled in policy. i broke at the toc among some other things and taught at nsd flagship this summer.
2. people who have significantly influenced me are kedrick stumbris, kris wright, tom evnen, ben koh, and jasmine stidham.
3. my favorite rounds in high school involved impact turns, cheater counterplans, classic policy args on the aff, and k tricks or politics on the neg.
4. i’m not perfect, but “really bad decisions” are usually not my fault - the best debaters make it easier to vote for them due to a number of factors (explanation, crystallization, actually letting me flow, etc.). if i made a personal mistake, i’ll make it clear, but if you’re trying to explain an argument to me in the rfd it’s probably a sign that something should’ve been done in round.
5. i like when people have clearly put time into understanding their position - obviously i like rounds more when they have arguments i like, but reading arguments i didn't like as a debater is not the brightline for good speaks or the win/loss.
6. voting on truths is easier than voting on lies, but debate is cool because we play devils advocate - maybe nuking russia to take out their nukes is better than waiting for them to nuke us.
7. theory should involve a defense of your model of debate - this is especially true in the context of fw, it's easier when k affs defend their model over particular disads to neg offense.
8. bad phil debates are just bad impact calc - i find it hard to assume 100% truth of a framework and hijacks make it way easier for me to evaluate non util debates.
9. your speaks will be fine - they may be better if you make me laugh or give me a good music recommendation.
have a great day!