Strawser,+Michael


 * Cliff Notes**
 * I’m familiar with the topic – I'm a coach.
 * I’m open to speed – but not if clarity is at stake. Only spread if you can remain clear.
 * I will vote on the K, topicality and theory (but see my notes on theory). I'm one of the few judges who really enjoy high risk arguments - anything that deviates from the norm - so if you have an oddball micro-political case - feel free to run it with me.
 * Very little offends me. I appreciate humor in a round; being sarcastic is not entirely useless. There is a difference between being a sarcastic debater and being unbearably rude to your opponent - don’t be the latter.
 * Voting issues are necessary. A good debater will write the ballot for me.
 * Theory: I don't like theory much at all, but there are cases where it's warranted. Read the longer version below on theory. I do not have the capability to flow a 20-point response in 30 seconds. In fact, I don’t know anyone who can. Slow down on theory!
 * Critiques: Love them. I’m a philosophy major – take advantage of it. That being said, if you’re not good at running them…don’t. No Ks are better than bad Ks.
 * If you are unsure about whether or not to run an argument, you can always ask.

Persuasion and eloquence take a back seat to argumentation. This does not mean speaking skill is entirely unimportant. However, I want you to prove you are right and not try to convince me you are right. I tend to disconnect from the presentation and look directly at the arguments. This (hopefully) forces debaters to actually develop extreme critical thinking skills rather than resort to blippy crap.
 * General:**

Debate rounds are a game and I treat them as such. If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people then you are a terrible advocate of your cause and you should lose. Don’t cry about stuff; “it makes me sad” is not a compelling impact. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win.

Logic and reasoning are your friends. If something doesn't make sense, it’s a good thing to point it out. An argument without warrants does not merit the ballot regardless of the impact or concessions – because it’s technically not an argument. This means that analytics have weight in my world.

I go completely off my flow. If you were unclear and your argument doesn’t make my flow, then it didn't happen. To be fair to competitors, if I am having difficulty understanding you I will yell 'clear' once. If I am in a particularly good mood, maybe twice. (Given how expressive my nonverbals are, this should already be more than enough.) But after that it’s up to you to watch me to make sure I am still holding a pen. If there is no pen in my hand, there is obviously nothing being written down on my flow. It is also important to keep my flow organized. Be sure to signpost and indicate specifically where you are going on the flow. Slowing down when reading tags is a good idea as well.
 * The Flow:**

Arguments are like eggs; once you drop them you cant just pick them back up. I would like you to reference the argument extended and the impact. The level of warrant extension needed is dependent on the level of answer - if the NC drops case, I'm fine with "extend framework, it's conceded, so all I have to do to win is X. Extend Card Y which said . It does X because ." If there are actual responses, I need you to explain the warrants of your arguments in a fashion that answers those responses, meaning you'll probably extend more of the warrant than that.
 * Extensions and Responses**:

You MUST engage in 3 minutes of cross-examination that does NOT involve prepping argument - this is non-negotiable, and disregarding this will result in poor speaks (max 25, in other words). You MAY ask questions to your opponent while you are prepping. My default setting on this latter bit is that the questions can be of any kind - clarification or not. If you want to alter this default setting, you and your opponent MUST agree to whatever alteration you want prior to the round, and inform me of it before the AC begins. As I hope is clear, I will accept any alteration of my default settings that doesn't infringe on the 3 minutes of CX I'm requiring.
 * Prep/CX/Flex**:

I’m not a big fan of theory, but I will vote on theory if it's less annoying than the abuse it responds to. That said, I'm not incredible at flowing theory, so if you toss four shells at me in 90 seconds, chances are I missed something. Be super clear. Additionally, affirming is hard enough already, so to compensate I consciously adopt a lower threshold for responses in the 1AR/2AR to theory shells; so cover the theory quickly and move on to extend other offense and you'll be fine. If you're going to run theory, don't run bad theory. What is “bad” theory? Basically – theory is for checking abuse, not strategy. You should only run theory if you seriously feel like you are being abused in the round.
 * Theory:**
 * Theory that you could run every round
 * Theory for which you have a shell in your other expando that says the exact opposite
 * Theory that indicts something that you yourself might run in a different round
 * Theory that indicts things that are REALLY common and predictable (like speed)
 * Theory for the sake of theory

I consider ethics to be of great importance in debate simply because the judge cannot see what you are reading nor is keeping track of what you are doing when you aren't speaking. I treat dishonest behavior as the most heinous of offenses and will reward it with zero speaks. Dishonest behavior includes (but is not limited to) internal cuts which change the meaning of evidence (i.e. not reading the word 'not'), stealing prep time/speech time, blatant lies about what you said previously in the round, and communicating with persons not taking part in the round. It is the responsibility of the debaters to analyze their opponents' arguments/behavior and a failure to point out dishonest debating does not merit me advancing that debater through my intervention (unless abuse occurs in the 2AR). Alternatively, when debaters do point out such dishonesty, it is a round killer. I will not hesitate to pull the trigger immediately. I don’t look at evidence after the round unless the warrants of it are challenged in the round, a debater asks me to review it as proof, or that the decision comes down to the evidence in question.
 * Ethics:**

I will use whatever scale the tournament recommends and will not deviate from it under any circumstance except as guided by my views on ethics and prep. I am not opposed to low point wins as long as the tournament permits them.
 * Speaker Points:**

My decision should come directly from your last rebuttals. This means that impact analysis, relational analysis (comparing your arguments to those of your opponents), and voting issues are critical. My decision calculus is what I refer to as debater-interpretive: you are free to instruct me how I should be evaluating the arguments and I need not view the entire set of arguments through a single lens. (It is actually possible to have an entire debate about what my lens(es) should be.) That being said, if you do not assign a specific lens to me, I default to value-based debate. But feel free to justify deviations.
 * RFD:**

I have taken entire sentences from other judge philosophies that perfectly explain the position I hold. So if you are one of those judges, I hope you don't mind that I stole some of your paradigm.
 * As a note:**