No doubt he would, allthough appropriate prepping for each such encounter usually carries with it additional merit.
What caught my ears about Matt specifically, as I've noted on elsewhere, is his conscious handle of the given frame of the given debate. He recognizes the core of the claim, he pursues that specific core with on-point retort and ignores or hinders the opponent from drifting around across the canvas. These are known and honed techniques of debating through reasonable logic. And Matt... well more than most he seems to have it down to a T for most parts, which impresses me (as most simply do not, anywhere close).