Jin,+Michael


 * Background**- I debated for 3 years at Fort Collins High School in Colorado. Currently I coach LD debate in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I also participate in Parliamentary debate at the college level. My background in debate has been largely non-technical, though this has begun to change recently. I've been to a few national tournaments, but am still largely unfamiliar with common practice on the national circuit for HS debate. I don't think this is especially prejudicial, but please feel free to disagree in your preferences.


 * General Philosophy**- In general I try to be as //tabula rasa// as possible. By that I mean I don't have particular preferences for the way a debate goes down, or what arguments are "legitimate." Tell me how I should judge the flow, tell me where you're winning it, and tell me a clear story to your win. In short: responsive clash, extensions, weighing, and voters. If you do so convincingly then I'll vote you up. If neither side is especially clear I will begin to intervene. When I do I tend to prefer the case that makes the most sense to me. I will tend to default towards the value that is best defended in my view, and whether you have arguments that actually allow you to both access your value and that garner some sort of impact (empirical, philosophical, whatever) off of it. I don't tend to have a presumption for either side. I will listen to arguments about burdens and presumption, but you will really have to sell it rather than blipping it out as an easy voting issue. I am fine with AFF and NEG both having an advocacy, just as I am with NEG simply negating AFF.

When it comes to philosophy I'm open to pretty much anything. This however is not license to obfuscate the round with some fancy citations. If I know the buzz word or general argument of an author I'll follow you along, but I won't be too excited about it and will give your opponents some leeway in their arguments against it. Your safest bet then is to really explain things to me in further examples or articulations. Anyone can read off a card, so a good debater doesn't need it to make a point. That being said, I'm most familiar with Western authors before the later modern or the post-modern period.


 * Speaking**- When it comes to speed I like to imagine that I can keep up with most debaters reasonably well, though I could also be wrong. I will give you a verbal, "Slow," if you're losing me and you'll want to slow down or I'll flow incompletely. Past that I may stop flowing. In any case I would recommend slowing down when it comes to long taglines, authors, complex or contradictory arguments, or dense theory. Signposting, especially in later speeches, is crucial for me. I am not adverse to speed and will certainly not punish you for it without good argumentation. That being said I prefer the quick but articulate and expressive (read: not monotonous) speaker to the super-fast one. Spreading is a legitimate strategy, but it's not a very fun one for me. I prefer the debater who goes fast in order to really flesh out or express a complicated argument, rather than one who hopes to have his opponent drop a point for future extension.

Otherwise I use speaker points to show how smooth and confident debaters are in a round. Sell your story to me-- even if, and especially if, it's utter nonsense-- and I'll give you more speaks. You're here to convince me, so do so.


 * Theory**- I'm semi-competent in theory. I understand the structure well enough, but you may begin to lose me if the theory arguments get too complex. You can avoid my confusion by running abuse theory that actually has a clear and real story, and by crystallizing well throughout the theory arguments. Frame every argument in terms of its ultimate impact for the round and my ballot and I will be happy to follow you along. I wish to make clear that calling "abuse" without an exceptionally clear story will not win you the round, and may just waste your time. At best it will garner a little offense and some defense against the "abusive" argument.

Please, please feel free and compelled to ask me questions at the beginning of the round if you're unsure of what I think about anything.