Harris,+Michael+P

Michael Harris

I debated LD for four years at Marcus High School in Texas where I competed locally and nationally on the UIL, TFA, TOC, and NFL circuits. I have taught at TDC, NDF, and NSD. I now attend the University of Texas at Austin.

**Overview** I really enjoy debate and believe in its many benefits. As a judge, I want you to tell me who wins, not the other way around. I will always try to intervene as little as possible. In doing so, I want you to debate the way that you want to debate and impact the community the way that you want to impact it. **Policy** I prefer if you label each part but as long as you have all the necessary parts I’m fine.

**K’s** Be explicit if your speech act links to the role of the ballot by itself (you don't need to win topical offense). Also, please be explicit about how I am supposed to weigh arguments under the role of the ballot (specifying a standard is fine). Also, please do not arbitrarily limit the role of the ballot. For example, if the role of the ballot says we have to challenge oppression, please don’t arbitrarily say that only one type of oppression would link. Of course, I am open to more specific role of the ballots, but please justify that step (a single argument justifying why we should only focus on one area would suffice).

A common argument is that all theory comes before all K’s or vice versa. I prefer arguments that are more specific and clash more than simply saying: “We need to solve for exclusion before we talk about what it means to be fair” or “Fairness constrains my ability to engage the K”. I will obviously still vote on either of these, but as a matter of preference the more specific the better.

Open to any role of the ballot/judge/etc.

**Theory** If the spikes are vague like “prefer aff interps” I will lean on the side of caution since it could be interpreted as prefer aff theory interps or prefer aff definitions. It may be the case that both are true, but I would prefer if you specify on things that could be interpreted in different ways. Err aff on theory or prefer aff interps should be clarified. I’m not sure if that means I presume aff on theory before returning to the substantive level or if that means I have a stronger gut check on theory (if reasonability wins).

I view interps as having a proactive reason to vote for you if you win the interp. This is distinct from the view that interps are the ones read first whereas counterinterps are read second. For example, I would not consider a Plans good interp in the AC as an independent reason to vote for you solely because you read it first. If the negative wins a plans bad interp + violation, I'd view it as an interp rather than a counter interp and would not require an RVI unless specified otherwise by the debaters. Open to args against this view, so feel free to justify the opposite claim and I will vote on it.

Offensive counter interps should have the additional plank that justifies why the act of running theory against X was bad in the first place. Otherwise, I would view this in the same way I view mislabeled turns (in the misc section).

Open to any voter/standard/net benefits/impact/interp including disclosure, afc, offensive counter-interps, meta, etc.

Note that while I am open to disclosure theory, I am also open to reasons why running disclosure theory (especially against smaller schools) warrants an RVI (or meta-theory, etc.).

Avoid new 2AR theory if possible.

**Default** I’m open to either side on any of these things, but in absence of a breath on any of these issues, these are my defaults.

RVIs – I default to whatever makes the most sense in the original voter. If the original voter was drop debater to rectify skew or drop the arg, I will default to no rvi. If the original voter was vote for the best interp, I’ll default to rvi. On T I'll default to drop the arg.

Truth Testing burdens/ Comp Worlds/ Whatever else - I default to truth testing just because that way I don’t arbitrarily exclude anything. Totally open to any args for or against though. This doesn't seem to be much of an issue anymore though.

RoB - I assume I have some role as an educator, that debate is an educational activity, and that debate requires some level of fairness unless told otherwise. I'll also assume that my vote and discourse after the round can have an impact on the community. For the sake of coherency, please still address these, but if you're short on time a few words will suffice.

**Misc** Micropol – I have a huge respect for micropol, especially when it's done well. If you're running against micropol, please stay polite and please don't run martyr theory against them. Otherwise, feel free to engage it as you see fit.

Mislabeled turns – If I can see a possible way that this could be considered a turn, I will count it as a turn. If I can’t conceive of any possible way that this could function as a turn (and I am creative), I won’t vote on it.

Lack of understanding – If I don’t understand the argument, I won’t vote on it. To clarify, this would only happen in extreme cases like “Vote aff cause skies are blue”. I have a pretty good breadth on a lot of k lit and random phil so things like that shouldn’t be a problem. If you are running a k that isn't popular or that relies on a lot of jargon and you are worried about it, labeling it at the beginning will help give me a frame to interpret your arguments. For example, saying something like go to the Legalism K or whatever it is will help. I also pay attention in CX so if you're explaining it to your opponent, you're also explaining it to me.

Dropped arguments – If your opponent drops an argument, the strength of link doesn't immediately increase. IE: if your argument says not eating broccoli leads to extinction and your opponent drops it, that doesn't mean you can claim 100% probability of your scenario. You can only claim what you originally claimed, a marginal link to extinction. Similarly, if you extend a dropped argument and create a new implication with it, such as cross-applying to the opponent's case, your opponent can still attack your new link argument. I will also accept arguments to answer blips in the second speech, as long as you justify it sufficiently (I will also accept arguments that they should not be allowed to).

Extensions – Just a single sentence will do. IE: “Extend the fw that we must respect autonomy for morality to guide action” or “Extend Gray that terrorism causes extinction”. Focus on the function of the arg in relation to the round.

Speaks – Evaluated on the basis of where I think you are in relation to the rest of the pool at the tournament with an average of 28. I say clear or slow if I'm completely lost but I try not to. If something is affecting your ability to speak or hear args please tell me (ESL, sick or sore throat) so it doesn't affect your speaks. I will give bonus points to you if you challenge my view of something or teach me something new, or if you show respect and kindness to your opponent. Some debaters feel that if they are paired with an opponent who is new to the activity, they will have less of a chance to show how good they are and their speaks will suffer. However, if use the opportunity to show kindness and inclusivity your speaks will reflect it.

Offensive/Rude arguments – default to drop speaks. I am open to args why I should drop debater. That said, I won’t sign my ballot immediately, I’ll still give the other debater a chance to argue. If you are creating an unsafe environment, I will stop the debate, drop you immediately, and report it as appropriate.

Risk of Offense - I think certain args can be terminal defense. Open to arguments against that view. Will give pretty low speaks if all you're winning is "I meet is only mitigatory defense so vote theory on risk of offense."

Miscut Cards - If it's a severe case of miscutting, especially if the evidence is being used on T or as an empirical link, I will default to drop the arg. If opponent points it out, I'm open to other impacts/args like drop debater, lower speaks, etc. That said, I won't sign my ballot immediately, I'll still give the other debater a chance to argue.

Conditional CPs - If you say your CP is conditional in the 2N I will give you low speaks. If it's never stated I assume that turns function normally. My default is that you cannot get out of a theory violation against a CP by saying that the CP was conditional, and I'll need a convincing reason if you want to make this argument.

Flex prep - Fine by me, just check with your opponent (unless tournament explicitly prohibits it).

Disclosing cases before/during/after the round - It's common practice to share your case with your opponent during the round (if not before). Unless you object to this practice (which is also okay, though you may be inviting theory), please be prepared to do so in a timely manner. If you would like to share your case with me during the round as well, that would be much appreciated as it also saves me time after the round.

If you have any questions, please feel free to talk to me! I only ask that you remain respectful.

Enjoy yourselves and have fun!