Johnson,Michael

== = **Michael Johnson**= == Lone Peak High School

Experience: Debated for 4 years at Blackfoot High School in Idaho. I traveled a little on the national circuit but broke and got speaker awards at every bid tournament I attended as a senior. I currently help coach at Lone Peak High School. I have only seen a handful of debates on this topic, but have read quite a bit of literature on this topic.

My philosophy

I haven't seen too many debates on the topic so you will have to slow down a little on the tags and speak clearly. I evaluate everything in a offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality: I usually tend to view topicality in whatever framework you tell me to. If the neg goes for competing interpretations they need to spend more time on T and that arg than most other teams would. I think reasonability needs some real aff analysis on how you still solve their standards. I love a good topicality debate. However, if the neg is going to go for it I expect you to spend 4-5 minutes on it in the block and the same in the 2nr. I tend to expect a lot of impacting of standards as well and feel that the neg has to have a decent ground, education, or potential abuse scenario if I will vote for T. If the aff is going to kritik T, do so carefully and it will take a lot of work

Kritiks: I wasn't much of a kritik debater in high school. But i do vote on them. I went for them occasionally, but they weren't my forte. If you're going for a kritik I feel that a lot of work needs to be done on the alternative level. You also may have to do more analysis of the K for me than other judges. I do find myself voting for framework quite often however and think it's strategic for both sides.

Counterplans: I love a good counterplan debate. I tend to think the negative gets a dispositional counterplan. I think there's a debate to be had on some theoretical issues like PICs, topical counterplans, and conditionality. But if the aff decides to go for theory i expect them to go all in on it in the 2AR. If the counterplan solves the entirety of the case and has a .000001% risk of a net benefit i'll vote for it.

Disads: I tend to think that the link debate is more important than uniqueness by far, so spend more time on that then the uniqueness level. I also think that impact analysis is the most important things for both the aff and neg so i expect some impact calculus.

Performance: If your aff is untopical, kritikal, or performance based you have to give me a framework to evaluate it and impact out what my voting for you will do. If you don't tell me the role of my ballot i probably won't vote for you. I do like watching a good performance debate if done well.

Other notes:

Speaker Points: 26.5 is average, 28 is good, 29 great, 30 is perfect. Organization is big for me. I expect you to be clear and if I can't get a tag it isn't on my flow. If you are unclear you risk losing speaker points. So if you can't go fast then don't. I like humor in debates so if you can make something funny go for it. It will help out your speaks.

I will evaluate any argument you tell me to just impact it out and give me a reason to vote for you.

Good Luck