Meng,+Michael

4 years of debate at **Greenhill**, 2014 No debate at **UChicago**, 2018

2014-2015 Season

I view debate as a game and am willing to listen to **almost** all arguments. T here are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. I have very little background knowledge on the current topic, so please be considerate of that when debating in front of me. Though, I may resolve that myself by calling for more evidence.

You must win an impact to theory the same way you would have to for Disads, K, etc. I enjoy theory debates the Northwestern-style (House of Theory). These debates often end up being listy-rambling which are both difficult to flow (so please be clear), and have little educational value (please stop reading blocks of prewritten text after the block). I will reward you for being as specific as possible and clearly impacting out each part of the theory debate. What theory will I vote on? Anything goes.
 * Theory**

Specificity makes me happy. Please show me you did research ahead of the round specific to what the other team will say. Do not mumble the text in the 1NC. Neg: Clearly explain what the CP does to solve the aff. Aff: Clearly explain what you think the difference between the CP and the aff is. Solvency deficits must be impacted for me to care about them. I don't default either way to textual or functional competition, that's a debate to be had. However, I will read the text of the CP.
 * CP**

Specificity makes me happy. I award the most point on a good link debate. If the 2NR is the DA, impact calculus is likely where my ballot will come down to.
 * DA**

While I debated for Greenhill, and thus have had more T-debates than I will ever admit, warning; I am not well-versed in this year's topic. This shouldn't discourage you in any way. It merely means that the preconceptions that you walk into the debate with, perhaps thoughts about what way the topic is shaping up and what general community norms on definitions might not apply to me. I will read more evidence if the debate breaks down to this. I care more about the impacts to certain definitions than the 'truth-seeking'-type of judging might. Again, I'm open to almost anything. You can impact-turn T, come up with a bogus counter-interp and impact that well, etc.
 * T**

Yes it's fine (surprisingly.) However, pet-peeve, don't just spout off pre-written blocks at me. I will be unamused. I don't read a lot of critical literature; so using a lot of terms or references that only someone who reads a lot of critical literature would understand isn’t going to get you very far. Be as specific as possible. Impact things out clearly. Neg: don't be wishy-washy in CX. Aff: Don't let the neg be wishy-washy in CX, push back. Admittedly I was more on the debate-against rather than the debate-with side of the table when I debated, but I also understand how losses happened and have also gone for it before. If Util is a form of ethics, how should I resolve an "ethics" versus Util debate? Answer these questions for me so I don't have to flip a coin please.
 * K**

Debated at Greenhill, so yes, totally chill, I love it. Make sure you have a good topic-specific impact. Defend the Fort!
 * Framework**

This may be where I differ most from the people I debated with and was coached by. I am fascinated by the wealth of literature that nontraditional affs utilize. And I'm genuinely interested in what these teams have to say. I will treat the burden that these affs have the same way I treat any aff's burden. If you are against T, you must clearly answer it; perhaps by impact-turning or something, but you must beat the argument with the same standards that I would apply to a 'traditional' aff. Your impacts are not automatically considered "more important" than the other team's, you must clearly explain to me why yours (supposedly) are. If Framework is clearly articulated and you lose the impact-debate, for example, then yes you will most certainly lose. Just saying "Framework is bad" or "You should think differently" is not enough, you must impact each of these things out and compare your form of debate with their form under their framework.
 * Nontraditional Affs**

Always happy to answer your questions before debates. Or email me at michaelmengghs@gmail.com Have fun debating and good luck this year everyone!