Saxton,+Michael

Was a debater through high school and college. I have been coaching speech and debate for 5 years I have been judging on the national level for about ten years. As a judge, I am usually defined as an Hypo Tester. What I think that means and what others think that means varies greatly through out the country.

General points: Spreading is fine, just make sure that you emphasis the author and date so I can flow it. Also if it is a link card, say it is a link card. I can flow very well but I don't want the flow to tell me the winner, I would prefer the debaters to have the skill to point out why they should win. Be careful with rudeness, not only will it effect your speaker points, but I have voted down some teams for it. I am usually the squirrel in a round and because I am a rare judge type I will be placed in a lot of out-rounds. I am well liked as a judge and your team or students will not be the first to lose because of me. Please trust that I am consistent. I know I am not like most judges. If you strike me because I am an odd judge, you are debating for the wrong reasons. i will not give oral comments unless it is an out-round or the coach asks me after. I am a published economic, social, and feminist theorist. So do me a favor and remove any cards that quote me, since I don't like it when my research is used incorrectly. Don't chance it. (I will amend this if the topic actually connects with my research) Usually listed as Saxton, Michael M; University of New Mexico I apologize for my messy handwriting on your ballot, beforehand.

Judging Paradigm: Main point to know about me, I have judge at least a thousand rounds, I have voted on topicality maybe 5 times. So frankly don't run it. (If you want it as a time suck, whatever, be my guess) The reason for this, is that a non-topical case should lose for many reasons, if as neg you believe that a case is non-topical than prove why the impacts, links, etc, shouldn't matter. I assume that good debaters have a topical case and if i think something is blatantly abusive then i will vote it down. Ask me, for an example before the round. As a Hypo Tester everything is fair game for the aff and the neg. I do have preferences that I will point out later. Mostly I just want the game of debate to be played. This puts a little bit of a burden on the neg to address the aff's stragety, that includes performance affs and other various weird affs. (notice topicality comment above) This doesn't mean that i will give a lot of stock to performance affs (low impacts and links usually), but I think they are fair game and that the neg needs to address them in a way that isn't "This isn't fair". I despise lazy debating, I want there to be clash, I want logic, I want good links. If your opponents don't understand your case or argument, either they are in over their heads or you failed to explain it well. Usually, it is the latter. Try to focus the debate on central issues so the issue or hypothesis can be tested or measured in a way present by the debaters. I will not vote on dropped points if both sides narrow the debate to important issues. I prefer reasonable impacts, but will buy nuclear war if the link is strong. Having multiple links is usually better than multiple impacts. I will vote for K and i think it is a good way to debate, so the aff better address it, if the neg has one. If you run K's it better link and that link should be apparent to your opponents. I come from the school that created the Justification neg block, I don't vote on it because it is really lazy. If you don't know what justification is, think of it as super T and since I rarely vote on topicality, I will not vote on J. Debate is for education, so use the round to show your skills and approach new ideas with enjoyment and curiosity, not contempt.