Bloom,+Michael

School Affiliation: University of Michigan Debated For: Iowa City, City Years in Debate: 7

General things to know: I debated for 4 years at City High in Iowa City. I debated both critical and policy arguments on both sides, but just because I know the argument doesn't mean I know your jive. Be clear about what you mean and don't assume i know anything about what you're talking about. The big mountain of cards game doesn’t work so well with me. I’d rather hear you read 2 or 3 cards and have some in-depth warrant comparison than sort through 10 and figure out how they all apply. I won’t call for evidence unless I feel I can’t resolve the debate without looking at cards or if there’s a question about the validity of the claim. I don’t like to listen to dumb arguments, but debate however you want. I’m here to listen to your debate, not tell you how to debate.

Topicality: I view topically in terms of offense/defense, but most of the time I’m fairly persuaded by reasonability arguments. Topicality is an all or nothing issue for me. If you want to win on it, it has to be the majority of the 2nr.

Critiques: I’m usually pretty good with it, as long as the story is well explained. I don’t think they need to have alternatives, but if it doesn’t, it also needs to be explicit what the role of the ballot means and why it means the plan is a bad idea and/or how the world is net-worse post-plan. If it does have an alternative, it needs to be explained how either it solves the impacts of the aff or solves the harms of the aff. Framework is only the way I should evaluate the round, but I’m willing to change my mind if there’s a compelling reason that it should win because of it. That said, it’s an easy way to win your impacts should come first or their impacts shouldn’t matter.

Counterplans/Disads: I think that the best, most specific debate often happens here. Generics are fine, but make them uniquely apply to the affirmative. Politics are cool.

Theory: For me, it’s usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team. If you really think something was abusive, go for theory, I’ll vote on it. Dropped theory arguments still need to be impacted, otherwise I won’t vote on them.

If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I understand that most of the time, reading judge philosophies isn't like being judged.