Mundt,+Michael

Michael Mundt Crowley High School 14 Years Experience, coaching/judging

I really am not comfortable defining myself within one of the developing LD paradigms, but insofar as I come out of a policy background I am probably most comfortable evaluating the world created by the affirmative v. the world created by the negative. Therefore, the debaters that have consistently won my ballot have not only carried forth their argument but have given me comparative analysis both within the position as well as how the position functions within the round. If you feel a need to move me out of my comfort zone, then you need to explain to me how you need me to evaluate competing argumentations.

I certainly strive to evaluate all arguments and don't randomly dismiss an argument; however, in judging LD I find that there tends to be short arguments that I'm seeing as blippy but you are seeing as having a major bearing on the round. If you want me to "pull the trigger" on that argument you should probably tell me how/why that argument functions within the round. Too often I am asked, usually by the person not picked up, "what about...?" The argument needs to be developed and clearly articulated as to why it matters within the round. Also, don't assume I am going to establish an "order of operations" or view the round on "multiple levels" without explanation and justification as to what order I should be viewing the round. If not established, I'll come up with my own order and one of you will not like it.

I am also much more impressed with topic specific literature than meta-philosophical stances and even less impressed with positions that are rehashed from resolution to resolution where a link is shoehorned to fit. Make sure you have a specific link to the resolution.

As for speed: I do not enjoy excessive speed in LD rounds, as I am not going to read evidence post-round because it was unclear when presented.

Theory: I tend not to enjoy theory debates as I think to some degree it forces intervention. I tend to not vote on theory unless there is clear abuse that skews the fairness of the round. I also generally believe that "defensive" answers are good enough against "zero-risk" arguments.

I am not a fan of post-modern writing because my background is not philosophy and as such am not comfortable rendering a meaningful decision based on the confluence of this limitation along with 26 minutes of speech time.