Liang,+Michael


 * Judging Philosophy:**


 * Overview:** I tend to err on the side of being a tabula rasa judge, but if the debate is very muddled, then I will resort to being a policy-maker.


 * Speed:** I am okay with speed, but keep in mind that I have not debated in over 8 years, and the circuit in which I predominantly judge is not as fast as national circuit debate. Be clear on tags and authors and dates. There seems to be a trend on the national circuit for debaters to not really be able to flow what their opponents say, but rather just flow off a viewing laptop. I think this is to the detriment of the activity. In addition, I don't get a viewing laptop, so don't expect me to flow what you don't expect your opponents to hear but rather see.

**Topicality/Procedurals:** I love good theory debates, but I want to hear clash on them. Lots of times I judge rounds where it's just two teams reading off theory blocks, but with no direct clash between them. It's like watching two ships pass in the night. Make sure you directly clash and you impact the theory arguments. T is also an argument where you can win only if you spend most of your time in the 2NR extending, otherwise I won't buy the abuse arguments.


 * Counterplans: ** I leave it up to the debaters to argue the legitimacy of theory here, but I love good CP debates, especially creative CPs.


 * Disadvantages: ** I don't buy the "try-or-die" argument as much as I should as a tabula rasa judge. I think that good impact analysis can articulate why the low risk of a big magnitude impact occurring doesn't matter compared to high-risk, low-magnitude impacts. I will vote on those arguments, but I don't find them particularly convincing. I find the crux of the debates here not on the impact level but on the link level. Articulate why the plan links and establish those linkages to the impacts. Contrarily, explain why the tiny risk of a link negates the impacts of the disadvantages from my decision calculus.

**Kritiks:** Love them, but only if you really understand them AND can articulate them to the judge. A lot of times you may "understand" the K, but you do a terrible job of explaining it to your opponents and to the judge. You can win my ballot by obfuscating the debate. I've been guilty of them many times when I debated. That being said, I will only vote on the Kritik if the following conditions are met: 1) Link well-established, 2) Framework for evaluating impacts-established, and 3) Alternative well-established. I want to differentiate between establish and well-established. With establish I mean that the framework debate doesn't need to be 100% won. With well-established I mean the link story and the alternative need to be 100% won in order for me to vote on K.


 * TL;DR:** Have fun and be nice. Make good decisions and tell me how to make my decision. Make my job easy.