Mangione,+Michael

I debated at Kempner High School in Houston for 4 years and graduated in '12. I did LD in high school competing on the local Houston circuit and attending the nearby national circuit tournaments. My debate experience has increased tenfold since i graduated both from judging and competing in policy at SMU.

UPDATED 1/2/15 just a few notes - the paradigm below is still accurate in describing how I construct my ballot with a few caveats - if you're going to read dense philosophy please explain it very well. If I feel that I can't understand what you're trying to argue I won't vote on it - I don't default to any sort of truth-testing/competing interps frame of mind so just tell me how you want me to view the res/debate - i won't ignore any argument just because i don't like it, that being said theory should reflect abuse. - lastly, try to give me something clear to vote off of and please please weigh. this should keep me from making a bad decision and generally help everyone in the room from walking away angry - also if you have any questions, any disagreements, any follow-ups, any clarifications, or maybe i missed something feel free to ask before the round, facebook message me, find me in the hall or whatever

I try to break down the round in this order:

First, I evaluate any theoretical arguments that were made in the round. These should be extremely justified as I think there are a lot of unnecessary theory arguments circulating right now. I will evaluate any theory, but it is up to me how to weigh it in the round. This comes down to A. the level of abuse in the round, and B. the tenability of the interp. Generally, I will at worst use theory as a way to err one way or another, and at best, use it to exclude.

Second, I look to see if there is any offense that comes before the standard or articulated weighing mechanism. In order for me to vote here, there has to be a fleshed out justification for why these sorts of arguments come before the standard. Otherwise, voting for it would necessitate my completing the argument for you which is intervening. And just generally, prestandard arguments that aren't prestandard at all are really annoying. If there are multiple prestandard arguments, please prioritize them. I think pointing out a lack of prioritization is a sufficient (and short) response to multiple prestandards.

Finally, I look to whichever standard is winning and explicitly linking offense back to that standard. This should be relatively simple, but increasingly debaters are cutting corners in their rebuttals. In order to decisively win a piece of offense, you // must // fully articulate a warrant and an impact without any ink left next to it. It might also help to say "extend." You must weigh your arguments for me- if I weigh for you, you might not like the results. Further, even if an argument is dropped, you still have to re-explain the warrant in your next speech. I really don't like hearing extensions that only use the author and the tagline.

I recognize that there will be situations where there will be no way to evaluate the round based off of the requirements I set for complete arguments. In these circumstances, I will be forced to evaluate arguments based off of the strength of extensions. This means, in the event of my intervention, I will prioritize arguments that were better explained, impacted, and weighed.

This should also tell you that I am partial toward arguments that criticize insufficiently explained arguments. Pointing out skips in logic, lack of impacts, lack of extensions, generally blippy arguments, etc. are all ways to help win my ballot and up your speaks. Note: saying "1. No warrant 2. no impact 3. no link" is not at all what I mean- you must explain precisely what they should have done but didn't and why that matters. In fact, if you make arguments that are simply "this arg has no warrant" it will make me a sad panda

There’s no argument I won’t vote off of, but I admit it's likely that I'm not as well read as you are in some authors. That said, if I don’t understand an argument, I won’t vote off of it. I think the sufficiency of a warrant largely comes from the manner it is articulated. I also like to see you understand your own argument. This is especially important when evaluating critical arguments and dense theoretical frameworks.

Flowing: I'm generally pretty good at flowing so speed is fine, but I prefer to actually hear taglines authors and especially signposts. I don't like to yell clear, but I will if it is completely necessary. You should be extremely interested in making sure I understand what you're saying

Speaks: this will reflect your clarity, rebuttals, strategy, and if I think you do something sketchy in round or the tenability of your theory violations are generally weak. I would rather see a good debate on the flow instead of a messy multiple theory shell debate.

Flex prep is fine. New arguments are really annoying especially if you claim that you read them in your constructive. I like interesting tricks and strategy. I would really like truly great and well organized rebuttals. this means signposting, going in an order that makes sense, thorough and logical argumentation and being clear