Seo,+Michael

I have had four years of debate experience in both Lincoln Douglass and Policy. I debated at Chandler High School (AZ), but am currently not active.

GENERAL
 * I consider myself tabula rasa (clean slate). Anything in a round goes, as long as it is debate well.
 * Kritiks are okay, but know what you're talking about and be explicit in what exactly you're criticizing. I will intervene as a last case scenario if both teams are running non-linking kritiks.
 * Speed is fine, just be clear with your tags. Seriously. I don't mean "mumble a bit louder" with your tags, I mean be clear.
 * Clearly outline why you win in the last speech. Zero in on the argument, make it easy for me to identify on the flow. Pretty tired of hearing arguments that never got pushed through the debate magically appear in the last speech.
 * Cross-examination is binding, tag-team is fine.
 * Flashing isn't prep time, but don't steal prep.
 * Please give warrants, especially if you're running K's. Clear tags so I know what's on my flow, but the rest of the speeches better have good analysis as to why your evidence supports what you claim.

SPEAKER POINTS

If you do what I just outlined above, you should get at least a 27. Anything above a 27 requires some creativity, especially with warranting and things like case turns. Love case turns, even if I never see them anymore.

Some basic things:
 * Again, CX is binding, and I will pay attention. Creativity in CX, if noticed, will be fairly well rewarded.
 * Be sportsman-like. Calling your opponent "stupid" or any list of trash talk just isn't cool.
 * This is a debate, give me some clash to zero in on. Don't really like hearing about who dropped what, even if I will be forced to vote on it. If that's all you've got though, that team is losing speaker points.

ARGUMENTS


 * Case:** This is policy. You better have something. K affs are fine, I guess, but I REALLY hate the fact that people run K's simply to bull their way through rounds while sounding "smart" at the same time. Give me some good research and good clash, especially when dealing with DA's and CP solvency. I love me some case.


 * Counterplans:** Usually like these. Just please try to avoid the artificial net benefits (Consult, etc), and CP with just a solvency differential going for it. Good comparative analysis between aff and CP is very much appreciated.


 * Disads:** Love these things. Not many ways you can screw these up. Specificity is very well-appreciated, simply due to the level of research that needs to be done. Well. Debate them properly. As in, explain them in context to the aff, instead of just some generic case turn blanket statements.


 * Kritiks/K Affs:** Oh boy. I'll vote on them. Doesn't mean I like them. Don't get me wrong, there are some awesome discourse and critical arguments out there. But just cuz they're out there, doesn't mean they're implemented well. I'm somewhat afraid to even encounter these just because the bar seems to have been set so low on how well things need to be explained, and how well that particular discourse or idea is impacted. Please explain to me exactly what your post-critical world looks like, or even what your alt/aff does. Like I said. The bar has dropped so low, I now have to ask people to explain their alt. Please don't let this be an issue in the round.


 * Topicality**: Not a fan of this either, but I will vote. It is a line of offense that I believe is indispensable to the neg. Topicality can be done well, but is mostly just used as a time sink. Not a fan. If you're going to go for T in the final speech, there better be a good reason. Them dropping it or "we had to drop an off arg" usually isn't going to cut it in terms of quality. Yeah, dropping it will probably have me vote, but points will suffer. Is the language actually unfair or abusive? Prove it. Also, affs don't need to "win" this necessarily, just have to contend against it if neg is running T as offense.


 * Theory:** This can be very interesting, and I usually award extra speaker points based on how creatively theory args can be used. Whether it's to support key args for an edge, or being able to convince me as a judge to drop an arg based on debate theory can be rewarding to even watch. I can vote on theory, but I have a very high threshold for me to decide to "reject the team". There better be a significant reason why, not just a final speech blip. I definitely do default to "reject argument" rather than "reject team", but if you do the proper work, I may just be convinced.

Any questions? Email me at michael.d.seo@gmail.com.