Dittmer,+Michael

Michael Dittmer Judge for Bellarmine College Preparatory

My background in debate revolved around 4 years of debating LD in high school, and this is also my first year in collegiate debate doing NFA LD and NPDA Parli. I am generally open to any arguments--but if I find an argument to be extremely offensive, I may not evaluate that argument/it could affect your speaker points. That said, I've never done that before, and don't expect that any debater would do so. If your argument is more complicated (e.g. critical arguments), I expect you to fully elaborate and explain what your argument is--I am not particularly well versed on critical literature, so don't assume I will know exactly what you are talking about/how it links to your opponent's case.

Since a lot of debaters wonder about this, I will briefly discuss my position on topicality and RVI's. I am open to vote on RVI's, but only if I feel the negative is being extremely abusive with topicality/theory and is using it as a time suck specifically. If you make an RVI, you need to warrant to me very clearly (just like any other argument) as to why the topicality/theory is abusive--not just why the topicality/theory is wrong. If you have any other questions about my paradigm not discussed here, feel free to ask me before the round starts. Good luck and happy debating!