Spirtos,+Mike

I'm Mike Spirtos. (Updated 12/14/10)

New thoughts:

I prefer a comparing worlds model for debate. Speed is fine. I will yell clear 2-3 times and then drop your speaker points. Theory is great. Win an abuse story or a reason why potential abuse is sufficient. RVIs are ok. I don’t generally vote on Independent voting issues if I can find something else to vote on. It is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. In some rounds this will mean that the offending team will be unable to win. If that is the case the aff should tell me that. Additionally, I like reasonability. If the aff is reasonable, well, they probably aren't going to lose (as long as they make that argument).

Ks: If you can't explain it, you can't win it. I prefer topic specific Ks...or ones with very very specific links.


 * Speaker Points (updated) a la Phil Samuels**

I don’t give many speaker point below 26 and generally to get a 26 you have to be trying or in the wrong division. But if you are in the open division here is a general guide that you can use so that you can know what to expect from me. 25.5 and below: You have just put me through pain. And you’re very lucky I didn’t freak out and beat you with your tub lid for it. Instead I have punished you the only community acceptable way and that is give you low speaks. 26-26.5: Today was clearly a rough day for you (and me since I had to watch you) but there may still be hope for you…someday. 27-27.5: These are about average for me I think. It means you did not piss me off (too bad) and you probably did some things ok. 28-28.5: You were pretty good. There were times in the debate that you surprised me with your prowess on a position that I thought was a turd. Good for you! 29-29.5: I rarely give 29’s and I am not sure that I have ever given a 29.5. To get these kinds of speaker points you have to just whip someone’s ass. And I mean someone good. 30—No, don’t even ask, not even on your birthday.

As adapted from Chris Theis:

I will not vote for the following arguments: - Moral Skepticism - Error Theory - Hard Determinism (Sorry, your L its predetermined) - A priori's without a developed justification for a truth testing paradigm - Theory counter interpretations that lack either a RVI or a reason they violate the interpretation - Pre-fiat arguments that are unrelated to your opponents conduct/arguments in the round