Michie,+Matt

Updated 9/11/17 I debated at Olathe Northwest and am a Junior at KU (not debating). First year assistant coach at Olathe West. My email is matt.michie97@gmail.com if you have any questions.

I default tab policymaker, but I will vote anywhere or on anything, so debate to whatever style you want.


 * Speed:** I would appreciate slowing down a little bit for tags/theory. Other than that feel free to speak at whichever speed you like. I will say clear if necessary.


 * General Theory:** I love theory debates, but think they're often pretty terribly argued. I probably have a comparatively low threshold for voting on most theory args, but don’t think that means you can spend 5 seconds on it in the 2AR/2NR and expect a win. Good theory debates are a big plus for me. Reading and subsequently repeating your theory blocks is not a good theory debate.


 * Disadvantages and Impact Turns:** I have no problem with generic disadvantages or impact turns, but a more specific link story is obviously more compelling. I mostly read/went for disadvantages/impact turns in High School, so this kind of debate is what I am most versed in, and most enjoy judging.


 * Counterplans:** I have no particular leaning to one side or the other on any kind of CP theory, and have no inherent problems with any particular type of counterplan. I generally think that if you don't have a CP+DA combo in the 1NC you're probably making a strategic mistake.


 * Kritiks:** I tend to think that “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alternatives are not compelling but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for one. The alternative is really important to me in evaluating a kritik, it'll be difficult to win my vote without a well-defensed alternative. The 2NR/2AR K debate should be strongly rooted in discussing the alternative. Specific/substantiated links will always be vastly superior to links of omission.


 * Framework**: I am not a big fan of all the extremely generic/limiting framework interps, like "Competitive CP or the Squo," but as above, I'll still vote for them. Much like the alternative debate on the K, I want very clear explanations of your framework and role of the ballot. I believe the Aff's role is to provide and endorse a resolution-based advocacy. If you're unapologetically untopical, you're really going to have to kill that Framework debate.

All of the above assumptions/preferences are dependent on the work you do in your speeches. Feel equally free to either adapt to these preferences, or do your own thing, just justify whatever you want to do in round.

1. I am not going to ask for any cards after the round, or want any speech docs (unless there are questions of clipping, plagiarizing, etc.). Asking me to call for one mid-speech is a waste of your time. Do the work yourself, don't expect me to cover for you. 2. You win debates on the impact level, no matter what argument you're going for. If you're not doing any impact work, you're probably going to lose. 3. An aff team that doesn't utilize the 1AC is a losing team. 4. I strongly dislike embedded clash, making the actual work in your speeches is far more compelling and prevents judge intervention. 5. I listen pretty carefully to cross-x, and like to give rank/quals credit to debaters who are good at it.
 * Miscellaneous:**