Harris,+Michael

Affiliations: Lynbrook High, Miller Middle

I debated at Loyola High School for four years, graduating in 2013.

1. I'm a very literally minded judge and person. Don't expect me to catch some nuance of something without your having pointed it out. Many times debaters who I vote against convince me after their debate rounds that I should have seen it their way, but it's irrelevant because they were unable to do this ten minutes before. This means, a) signpost (tell me where you are on the flow). b) Number your arguments. c) Give each argument an implication (if I win this point, it means she cannot win that point, etc)

2. On theory, I don't assume that a debater can win the round off of a risk of offense. Topic debates need to be decided one way or the other, aff or neg, (so I don't feel guilty when I decide those based on the closest thing I can find to a good reason). That's why judges sometimes have to vote off of a chance there's a benefit to doing the aff or the neg when one hasn't been clearly provided by either side. Theory debates are not this way. If someone hasn't done the bad thing, don't punish them. If you expect me to change from this default, please spend more than 2 seconds doing so. And say more than "competing interpretations." "Not reasonability" is not a proactive justification for expecting your opponent to answer theory with only offense. Essentially, don't just spew nonsense and then insist your opponent hasn't met her burden when she fails to read an "explicit counter-interpretation" on theory.