Leap,+Michael

Michael Leap

Judging 5 years.

I am a debater for Wayne State University.

I like to vote on arguments. An argument is something that has: (1) a claim -- something that you think is true, (2) a warrant -- the reason why you think that thing is true, and (3) an impact -- why it matters if that thing is true.

I don't have an inherent preference for Policy or K arguments but my research preference is critical argumentation 9 times out of 10. If you do not know who I am (if you do, then chances are good that you already know how you feel about my leanings) and you are trying to rank me based on this as a sort of metric, then I would use the following set of statements to guide you:

I try to intervene as little as I can, in any argument, one way or the other.

I have never heard an explanation of "judge choice" that meant anything other than "judge intervention good" to me.

I am not inherently convinced that the resolution is the predictable, agreed-upon stasis point for the debate. I am not necessarily tied to the idea that preserving human life is a good role of the ballot. I do not have any problem with performance debate; I prefer when form matches content. I will not assume that the debate occurs within the realm of some form of positivism, unless instructed to do such, of course, and so I will not default to the idea that the specific explanation outweighs the general, that non-falsifiability is something important, that expertise and empirical data are good standards of evidence quality, etc.

That being said, I have been told that I have a relatively high threshold for critical argumentation in both evidence quality and explanation. Ultimately, I have zero preference towards one style or the other. I will vote on any argument presented to me (other that racism, sexism, homophobia good, & etc.).

I keep a very good flow and am absolutely fine with speed (although tonal differentiation and clarity are required). I attempt to be an enthusiastic and technical judge. I call for evidence that is disputed by the other team, explicitly flagged in rebuttals, or especially important to a nexus issue in the debate.

Condo is probably fine but I will vote on who wins the debate. Things like aspec are a harder sell.

When in doubt, and/or if you have me in the back of the room and are lost because all that you know about me is having read this judge philosophy and having heard that I sometimes defend human sacrifice affs, then you are always safe having a big old impact turn debate (critical or otherwise).

I am fairly easy to read (verbal and non-verbal) during rounds.

Don't steal prep.

Go for T: yaaay. But I would prefer if you engaged a non-plan-reading aff (as opposed to reading framework, etc.)

Cross-x is for lovers.