Callahan,+Michael

Glenbrook South '16 Wake Forest '20

Debate is a game that's most enjoyable when two teams clash in-depth over a well-prepared topic. Succeed at engaging your opponent and I'll want to judge you and vote for you. If it looks like you don't care about the round, I won't either. I feel like a lot of philosophies people have written boil down to "articulate a nuanced position and I'll vote for you." Instead of repeating other people, I'll just list a few thoughts that differentiate myself from other judges: -Affs should read a plan. -Fairness is an impact, and a good one. -Link/internal link defense is a lot more persuasive than impact defense. -Counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy are not competitive. -Conditionality is probably good but I can be convinced otherwise. -I give speaker points solely based on how you sound, not the content of your speech.