Erami,+Goli

edit
 * ~ Details || last edit by [[image:http://www.wikispaces.com/i/user_none_sm.jpg width="16" height="16" caption="mac404" link="http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/mac404"]] [|mac404] Oct 30, 2007 10:22 pm - 3 revisions || [[image:http://www.wikispaces.com/i/w/W_close.gif caption="hide details" link="Carter, Michael#"]] ||
 * ~ Tags || * none

SaveCancel || 10 years of teaching experience. 7 at the high school level and 3 at CSU.Currently teaching English and a Speech and Debate Coach at Santa Margarita High School. I have an MA in English and Rhetoric. I have assisted in High School speech and debate tournaments and have judged 3 tournaments.
 * Experience and General Background:**

Do not try to read my face, posture, or how much I write. I take this very seriously and will be listening to your argument.
 * Looks can be decieving**: I may be young, but I'm still a relatively traditional judge. "Weird" arguments for the sake of being weird will rarely work on me. I'll still listen, and if you are great at explaining the concept behind your theory, you can get me to agree with you. Your burden is just higher than for other arguments. I much prefer value debate/standards debate to debate about interpretations of the resolution, as well.


 * Delivery**: As a general rule, the more complicated the explanation of your argument, the slower you must talk for me to be able to write down anything. Fast talking can be fine for me (but still not especially preferable) if your explanation is clear and concise.  The faster you talk, the clearer I expect you to be able to enunciate as well. That said, I can flow quite quickly and I do flow very thoroughly. The fast talking shows weakness. Just because you include a lot of information, it does not mean your argument is sound. As a matter of face, those who speed through the speech are speaking volumes of their insecurity.

RFD: **I almost always vote on standards.** The framework needs to have been clearly established and consistently established during the round. Failing that (ie. no clear winner on standards), I will vote on which debater's standard would seem to have a larger impact on the resolution. Make sure you impact your arguments back to your standard, then weigh those impacts against your opponent (and simply saying "mine outweighs" or "mine outweighs on magnitude" without explanation will get you nowhere). Failing that, you will force me to decide which side to weigh above the other.

Oral Critique: I will, most of the time, offer a few comments after the round. I do not disclose (please don't ask, it drives me insane), and my oral critique is not the time for you to personally argue with me (being disrespectful will undoubtedly cost a speaker point or two). You can obviously ask questions, but keep them brief and I do not guarantee I will answer.

In general, I'm impressed by insightful cross-examination questions, an articulate speaking style, and a firm grasp of the central issues in a given round.

Being outlandish, rude, hyperbolic, and fallacious will not impress. I am a strong believer of the Aristotilian theory of persuasion.