Keefe,+Michael

Hi, I'm Michael, but most people call me Keefe. I grew up in Omaha, Nebraska where I debate for Omaha-Westside under the tutelage of Zachary Lipman (now coach at Millard North) who taught me how to run heg good, and usfg action affirmatives and Dana Christensen (former coach of Millard South) who taught me how to run non-plan text affirmatives, performance kritiks, and personal politics. I therefore have a very diverse background when it comes to debate and appreciate a speech inspired by impact calculus and nuclear war just as much as a form and content identity argument. This background is probably the reason why I chose to come to the University of Pittsburgh, where I am continuing the cultivation of my skills on a team that is widely considered to be "middle of the road".

However, there are a few things you need to know about me...starting with how I evaluate each round.

In general, I value your arguments based on time committed. Obviously this is in the belief that more time you spend extrapolating on warrants will make your world a little bit clearer. This means that words/arguments such as a permutation, while I obviously know what it means, does not act as a magic word for me. If you willingly choose to undercover it, I will be more susceptible to weigh a disad against it. This is not to say I will never vote for a perm, rather its just an acknowledgement that vague extensions will not get you far with me. While I understand this all sounds common sensical to some, I think its necessary to inform debaters how I think when weighing arguments on each part of the flow. This also means that I will refrain from calling for evidence unless your lack of a concrete extension requires it.

When it comes to speaking skills, I want debaters to debate the way they are most comfortable in front of me. I will say that I do like debaters who break from the technicality of debate. This means that I prefer depth to quantity and that I prefer persuasion to jargon. Otherwise, I will follow whatever it is you like to do.

On arguments:

Framework/Theory/Topicality:

These are not the flows I like, but do have experience running them and debating against them. Therefore I have a very high threshold for what it means to execute a t or theory argument. Execution is not about extending, and re-extending your list of unresponsive 10 arguments in 10 seconds, its about taking point one, creating a clear link on the flow, placing it there, and moving on to point two and so on. This will obviously take some time, but you already know that that is precisely what I ask for. This type of respect your ethos will generate will be enough to move me to vote for you.

K

I have always run kritiks, and am continuing to do so in my rounds. They gel really well with how I think about debate so I will definitely prefer a clear, and concise story by the end of the round. This means that buzzwords are not cool with me. For example, just saying "we are kritiking the military industrial complex" will not be enough to win a link. Break down the language a little bit. Links of omission are pretty shady, but sometimes the lit does flow in that direction so just make sure your evidence is good there. The 2NR should give me clear articulations of the alternative and why the perm can't solve. The impact debate is important, and "turns case" with a clear articulation why. Oh and I'm all about hearing new methods even if they are with overused kritiks....just a thought

Disads

They're cool. I'm fine with politics but honestly don't like it a whole lot. Sticking to more traditional DAs would be better. I like seeing slightly k-oriented DA's against k affs, which is something you don't see too often. Make the link really solid.

Counterplan

Conditions and consult cps are stupid, but I will vote on them if handled improperly. Process/Agent counterplans are a bit better. Not much else to say other than impact calculus is huge on this flow for me.

Non traditional affs

Advocate some sort of action, and tell me why it is good. Making it marginally topical would be great but isn't necessary. If you're completely untopical, just have a clear justification for why that type of debate is good (like a rotb or a defense of your scholarship)

Bring your A game,

MK