Suo,+Michael


 * Michael Suo**
 * Lexington ‘11, Harvard ‘15**


 * Speaking**
 * Be nice, be smart, have fun.
 * Watching good cross-ex is by far the most engaging part of judging. I will pay attention and grant much weight to any concessions extracted.
 * Be clear. I am loath to reconstruct debates if I didn't understand what was happening in the first place.


 * Things I think about debate**
 * I don't think you should pref me based on any perceived ideological bias. Arguments are arguments. I have never cared what form they take, or what you choose to call them. You shouldn't assume that I’m familiar with whatever critical literature you’re talking about, but you also shouldn't assume that I know about the minutiae of your counterplan. Do what you’re good at.
 * I am very reluctant to vote on arguments made in the text of cards but not in the debate. If you think you have better evidence you should explain why.
 * A new argument is one that could not have been predictably deduced from my understanding of its previous form.
 * For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.
 * In theory debates, a team must win first that their interpretation is better, and second that it is so much better that I should reject the argument/team. Left to my own devices, I will not vote aff on a close shave on international fiat bad. Similarly, I will not vote neg for a topicality interpretation that limits out a single additional case.