Mike-selck

Affiliation:

 College: Southern Illinois University Carbondale ( 4 years Parli)  High School: Blue Springs High School (Policy 4 Years, National and local competition)

-The less comparative impact calculus you do, the more the round will suffer.
 * Quick Notes:**

- I keep up on the world and expect you to as well.

- Don’t lie.

- No one has ever won a debate round because they cussed. Similarly no one has ever won a debate round because they were disrespectful to an opponent. Think about where you are investing your time.

I did 4 years of policy in high school at Blue Springs, MO and 4 years of parli at SIU. During that college career I won 14 tournaments, the NPTE, and the NPDA.
 * History/ Experience:**

Speed is not an issue but clarity often is. It’s important for judges to be honest, rather than intimidated, if they simply cannot understand a debater because of a lack of clarity. “It is better to speak remembering we were never meant to survive.” bell hooks. Also, if an opponent asks or requires you to reduce your speed in round your points become contingent on your acquiescence. Those vacuous speed good warrants rarely, if ever, take into account the type of body they are demanding performance from. I am highly receptive to arguments about accessibility in debate, particularly regarding disability.
 * Delivery:**

My argument preference is diversified I read the K a lot and policy strategies just as often. I won’t list all the authors I have or haven’t read. Here are some schools of thought I work with or enjoy: post-modernism, modernism, deconstruction, post-structuralism, and existentialism. Here is what I am less familiar with or do not enjoy: post-humanism, theology, psychosocial/psychoanalysis, neoclassical theory.
 * Argument Selection:**

Feel free to perform or read a project in front of me. When you do, you assume a certain level of risk because I have only been formally trained in traditional methods of debate. I study performance at SIU so I enter into that discussion with a background, but it is fairly disconnected from debate. You simply must dedicate a responsible amount of time in your performance citing my role as a critic, and how I evaluate the debte.

Impact framing is the difference in highly technical debates.

I grew up a member of the offense/defense school of hard knocks. Though, I do not rule out the possibility of terminal defense. Although completely arbitrary I am sometimes persuaded by teams that calculate a percentage of possibility to the impact they are reading defense against.

I enjoy a good topicality debate. I think that is rare though. I come from the Todd Graham school of approaching topicality which is probably radically different from the way you currently understand T. There is fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes a standard and what constitutes a voter. Standards are how you determine which definition of a word is best. Voters are why meeting that standard is important for debate.
 * Topicality:**

I dislike specs and find that they serve much less utility than the community might believe. There is not a substantial time trade off, especially against a well rehearsed 2a. The time wasted on specs will always be better served on the case debate. That being said its not as if I refuse to listen to them.
 * Procedurals:**

CP’s are smart. Permutations are only ever tests of competition. I think I have seen every type of counter plan out there. Slow down for your texts, especially if they are complex or multi plank.
 * Counterplans:**