matthew reichert Paradigm

Last changed 12 October 2017 6:22 AM EDT

EMAIL CHAIN IS PREFERRED: reichert003@gmail.com 

 

Experience- Cathedral Prep Debate 2003-2007

Coaching Experience- Cathedral Prep Debate 2008-2011 (left to pursue Law School.)

2015- Present.

Currently: Corporate Counsel for an international shipping/logistics company. 

I like good debate and vote for good debaters. If your approach and what I say below are different I still encourage you to do what you do best. 

Non-Conventional Affirmatives- See above statement. The better team wins these debates 10/10 times. 

Topicality- a well-argued T debate is always fun to judge. I default to competing interpretations and evaluate it on an offense/defense paradigm, however that is only my default and am easily persuaded to evaluate the debate otherwise as long as you win why I should. That being said, even though I default offense/defense I differ from many judges in that I do not believe in the "there is only a risk they don't meet" jargon. I believe that meeting any interpretation is a yes/no question, and if the negative is not compelling enough for me to believe the affirmative doesn't meet I see no reason to reject the affirmative. From the negative I find arguments for context, grammar, and predictability FAR more compelling than limits and ground, and from the affirmative I often am most persuaded by affirmative ground, innovation/creativity, and critical thinking arguments. T is 99% likely a voting issue, but again I can always be persuaded otherwise.

 Counterplan – Counterplans are good. Conditionality is good. Probably should have a solvency advocate with your Counterplan but not a deal breaker. Important thing to understand about me in the back of the room, in a world where the 2nr goes for a Counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo as well unless told to by the negative.

 Theory is a voter, pending a good example of in round abuse. 

Disadvantages – Big fan of disads, love hearing a good politics debate. Turns the case and outweighs the case arguments are always a plus. I do not think that offense is a must on disads. I don't know exactly why some judges in the debate community believe that no offense on a DA= a neg win, because I think that the majority of DAs in debate are quite contrived, at least in comparison to the aff, thus defensive presses on internal links and impact uniqueness are especially compelling to me. That being said, I always think offense helps the cause a great deal and it is strongly recommended you focus a bit of time on establishing offense against DAs. I find turns the case arguments as well as timeframe arguments compelling tie-breakers, and vice-versa for the aff.

Kritiks-I'm more familiar with: psychoanalysis, security, gender, queer theory, imperialism/post-colonialism, capitalism, race/racism. Make sure you read and comprehend the literature you're deploying. Realism, Jarvis, and Owen don't answer every kritik. 

Performance- If you have a reasonable relation to the topic go for it. 

 Note about paperless debating--I prefer an email chain with me included whenever possible. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in paperless debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are underhighlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of preptime taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. For me, prep time is running until the flash drive is given to the other team and then it stops and becomes judge time. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then I prefer that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech. I don't understand why people exchange paperless speeches that do not contain evidence.

 

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
NCFL Grand National Tournament HS 2021-05-26 CX R5 Eagan MA McPherson HS Aff Neg 2-1
NCFL Grand National Tournament HS 2021-05-26 CX R4 Springfield Catholic HH Downtown College Preparatory El Primero MA Aff Aff 2-1
NCFL Grand National Tournament HS 2021-05-26 CX R3 Baltimore City DS Blue Valley West BW Neg Neg 3-0
NCFL Grand National Tournament HS 2021-05-26 BT BT CX Ballot Test SF Ballot Test TO Aff Aff 149-58
NCFL Grand National Tournament HS 2021-05-26 CX R2 Murrah WM Lincoln MT Neg Neg 3-0
NCFL Grand National Tournament HS 2021-05-26 CX R1 McDonogh SR Gunn OS Neg Neg 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-01 VCX Double Lexington TL Berkeley Prep MW Neg Aff 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-01 NCX R7 Niles North KS Glenbrook South MB Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-01 VCX R6 Glenbrook North DJ Wylie E. Groves RB Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-01 VCX R4 West Des Moines Valley GC Lexington TL Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-01 VCX R3 Glenbrook South GS Westminster MG Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-01 VCX R2 Lexington BB Glenbrook North JK Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-01 VCX R1 Glenbrook North KP Pine Crest Prep CD Neg
Grand Nationals HS 2017-05-27 CX Octos 114 103 Aff Aff 3-0
Grand Nationals HS 2017-05-27 CX R5 176 115 Neg Neg 2-1
Grand Nationals HS 2017-05-27 CX R4 161 145 Neg Neg 3-0
Grand Nationals HS 2017-05-27 CX R3 188 165 Neg Neg 3-0
Grand Nationals HS 2017-05-27 CX R2 166 196 Neg Neg 2-1
Grand Nationals HS 2017-05-27 CX R1 104 119 Neg Neg 3-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2017-01-27 PEL R6 Little Rock Central JJ Woodward AH Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2017-01-27 PEL R1 Chicago Lab Schools BH La Salle College OS Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2016-10-26 VCX R7 Chicago Lab Schools PL Pine Crest Preparatory CD Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2016-10-26 NCX R5 Wylie E. Groves LS Homewood-Flossmoor GW Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2016-10-26 VCX R4 Glenbrook North JJ Niles West YN Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2016-10-26 VCX R3 Niles North MN Glenbrook South BS Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2016-10-26 VCX R2 Niles North BL Okemos LM Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament HS 2016-10-26 VCX R1 Walter Payton CP SW Niles West FK Aff
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2016-09-03 Var R6 Isidore Newman AL New Trier HN Aff
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2016-09-03 Var R4 Niles West SS Westlake ST Neg
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2016-09-03 Var R3 Niles West KC Strath Haven PZ Neg
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2016-09-03 Var R2 Ransom Everglades WG Cross Keys KP Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL ADW Glenbrook North JT Baltimore City ID Aff Aff 3-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL R3 USN BW Caddo Magnet CM Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL R2 Iowa City WZ Grapevine BW Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL R1 Loyola GT Edgemont Jr./Sr. JM Neg