Mitchell,+Greg

Background
I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for about 3 years and Public Forum for about a year at Niceville High School (2005-2009) in Florida. I do not debate in college. Studying at Georgia Tech. Fairly well versed in the major philosophers and schools of thought.

Judging Philosophy
I was a conservative debater in high school and still prefer a more traditional style of Lincoln-Douglas debate. To be more specific - I will listen and consider any argument, but I firmly believe that LD uniquely focuses on the moral or abstract aspects of an issue. Therefore, while pragmatic evidence certainly has its place, I will tend to agree with a debater that claims that the philosophical impacts come before issues of, for example, implementation. I didn't run kritiks or other policy-style arguments, but I am familiar with them. To vote for a policy-style argument, I'd want the debater to carefully explain both the argument and how it is applicable in this resolution. General kritiks applicable to any resolution are not likely to get any brownie points.

Some specifics: -Specifically weight arguments and link them to the resolution. Tell me why the argument matters in the context of what the round is about! -Persuasion is essential in debate! While I prefer to vote off the flow, persuasion and clear and logical thought and speech will assuredly determine the round if it is close. The best way to be persuasive is to be clear - which also happens to be the best way to get your points on the flow and keep them there. -Speed is acceptable, but I do not like speed for the sake of speed. Spreading is not for the win. -Following that - I vote based on who has the most impactful argument(s) on the flow - not who has the most. If one debater has 5 points on the flow, but the other conclusively maintains that their one matters more, I will vote for on the one argument.

So, pretty standard stuff.