Keil,+Christian

=__**Christian Keil**__= //Lakeville South High School '09 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor '13// //Rounds Judged This Year: ~10 Affiliation: N/A//


 * General Paradigm Things:**
 * I don't subscribe fully to any paradigm, but I lean towards truth testing for two reasons:
 * I think that debate about the resolution's assumptions is pedagogically important and interesting. This doesn't mean I would enjoy listening to an entire NC of reasons truth doesn't exist, but if you sufficiently develop a topical, unique, and interesting critical argument, you will be rewarded.
 * I like to think that I don't have any biases pre-round - obviously regarding the sides of the topic, but also in terms of positions I would automatically exclude or prefer. I will listen to any/every argument presented in the round. I haven't yet found a true exception to this rule. Below, I outline things that I may have a higher threshold of voting for, but there is nothing that I will reject on face.


 * Don't be mean. Humor definitely has a place in a round (and is encouraged), but don't be a jerk, especially to newer and less experienced debaters.


 * Give me a decision calculus. Be very explicit when giving it. Tell me which arguments come first, don't weigh arguments in a vacuum, etc. If you don't tell me what to do, at least some amount of intervention is necessary - which doesn't make anyone happy.


 * Specific Stuff/Topics of Interest:**
 * Speed isn't an issue - I'll yell clear if necessary - but slow down for author names, be clear, and signpost. If you're not clear, I'll be angry. As a related note: if you can go slow, be clear, and still win, I'll be impressed. And happy.


 * Theory is fine, but don't push it. I won't exclude theory if I think it's being used unnecessarily, but I'll probably have a higher threshold for voting on it. I don't particularly love when debaters rely on the "Seventeen reasons fairness/education isn't a voter" blocks to beat back theory.


 * Speaker points will generally be based on your clarity, your strategic decisions in the round, and the quality of your arguments/research. Empirically, I average about a 28, with pretty little variation - barring something spectacular or appalling, don't expect less than a 27, or more than a 29.


 * I think that presumption is almost always avoidable, but if I'm forced to (and absent a presumption debate in round), I'll vote for the debater who I think deserves the win more. If neither of you deserve to win, I'll vote aff.