Ament,+Michael

Hello debaters - I’m Michael Ament. I graduated from Middlebury College in Vermont in 2013 and am now at NYU Law. I am a former LDer from Brentwood School (Class of '09). I have been involved in the activity only sporadically over the past five years and you should adjust accordingly.

I prefer traditional standards based debate, but I don't want to punish you for running a unique case or unique arguments. If you choose the traditional route, the most important component of standards debate to me is WEIGHING TO THE STANDARD. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS AND BE EXPLICIT. I like it when debaters use phrases like, “I outweigh for x reasons and better achieve the standard than my opponent because of y”. Compare your offense to your opponent's explicitly and do the work for me. I love debaters who can clearly explain why their arguments come before or mitigate their opponents and give me both case level impacts and in-round voting impacts.

If you are going to be using a unique case structure, there must be sufficient explanation of how the case functions in round if you expect me to pick you up. I am willing to hear any and all arguments but, again, they must be well warranted and argued. Opaque arguments don't help you win rounds; good, clear, and substantive arguments do. For example, don't run a K unless you really show how your opponent or the resolution links into it. I will call you out for a dumb kritik.

**Theory**: I was never a theory debater and I'm not a theory judge now. Quite simply, there is a good chance that you will be wasting your time going for theory in front of me. Let me say it once more: I REALLY HATE THEORY DEBATE. I am very bad at resolving it and everyone will be unhappy with the result. If your strategy is to goad your opponent into a theory debate, don't do it in front of me. Please adapt. I really prefer hearing about the actual topic and not interpretations of the rules of debate. However, that does not mean that there isn’t a time and place for theory in a round. If there is a clearly abusive standard or interpretation in your opponent’s case that skews ground against you – go for theory but do it slow and clearly spell out what the abuse is and how I should resolve it.

**Speed**: For speed, I can keep up with most debaters but I will warn you that I have been out of the activity for a bit and my flowing ain’t what it used to be. If I don't catch your argument on my flow, I don't have a way of judging by the end of the round. Therefore, going at a reasonable clip is the best strategy in front of me. Spreading is a REALLY STUPID STRATEGY IN FRONT OF ME. I will call out clear/slow down if you are mumbling or if you are going too fast, but after three times, I will stop and your speaker points will suffer dramatically.

Aside from these points, I like it when debaters are nice and courteous to each other. This isn’t a death match – it’s a fun and educational activity. Debate was one of the best parts of high school for me and I hope it will be for you as well! Good luck and have fun!