Larson,+Michael

__**Policy Paradigm:**__ I am an educational games-player. To better explain the paradigm, I see the debate round as an game between the two sides that is used to help develop educational understanding of argumentation skills. I believe that there are basic rules established in every round; however, I am willing to listen to tests of other supposed rules. I prefer offensive debate, and usually, the side that presents the best attacks the flaws of the other sides arguments is the one that wins. I also prefer to hear well-reasoned, creative attacks. The key is to develop a sound strategy against the other side. If your best strategy is to push through a policy maker lens or a stock issues lens, then do that. I appreciate smart, strategic debate.


 * Tag-Team** **Cross-x**: Don't like it at all. I am willing to let a partner explain or answer something that the other team needs to know, but it really makes the partner look like they have no idea about what they are debating. It will not reflect well for you on the speaker points.


 * Speed**: On a scale of 1-10, I am probably a 5.5, maybe a 6 on good days. Actually, I am fine at whatever speed you go as long as your articulation is clear. If you are not clear I will give you an indication, typically nonverbally, to slow down. I also don't like gaspers in my rounds. This is still a speaking event. If you have to gasp to speak, then you need to slow down and learn better breath control.


 * Depth over Breadth****:** When debating, explain the positions and don't rely on speed tags. If your whole point is 8 words long, then there is probably no point in listening. Put the work in if you want me to vote for that point.


 * No New 2NC is not a theoretically sound position**: I reject the idea that new arguments can not be brought up in a constructive speech. Don't try and argue it in my round. It will make me very angry.


 * However**: With that said, if a team tries to abuse the affirmative by running 5 new DA's in the 2NC, I will give the affirmative A LOT of leeway to respond. Keep in mind my "Depth over Breadth" point. You place forward better arguments if you take the time to properly develop them.


 * Theory:** I am good with theory and will be okay with some theory debate, but your theory had better be rooted in strong evidence and reasoning.


 * Kritiks**: Some Kritiks are excellent and do a wonderful job of exposing the actions of the affirmative plan or the resolution as a whole. When the team understands the theory behind them, can explain in detail the implications of the theory and provide a valid alternative, I love listening to them. However, if you don't know the theory, it is too complicated to explain in an eight-minute speech, or you can't provide an alternative other then vote the other team down, I really don't like them.


 * Generic DAs:** I understand the need for them, I am okay with them; however a clear specific link story is ALWAYS better. The more generic the DA, the more susceptible it is to being non-unique, and I don't care if you win all ten link arguments, if the DA is non-unique, it is non-unique.


 * Politics DA:** The thought process behind this one has always confused me. The idea that we are debating process of the enactment of the law makes no sense with the theory of Fiat. Fiat allows the affirmative to test their proposition, not test it but only after the Republican's get mad at Obama (which they do for everything else anyway). Backlash, maybe, but reality would say if the republicans don't like it in the first place there is no compromise and if they do want it, they are not going to shoot themselves in the foot. I would encourage you to run a Spending DA over any form Politics (and I think most generic spending DA's are really bad).


 * Rant over:** Seriously, feel free to ask me any questions before the start of the round. I am willing to do my best to answer your questions. Remember, if you want my ballot in a round, use a smart strategy that uses good clear reasoning that attacks the other side's arguments.


 * LD:**


 * Speed: 5**


 * Criteria:** I typically use a criteria to help form the lens to evaluate the round. If the main value is justice, should I take a utilitarianism approach or a kantian approach. A lot of rounds will be determined on who can prove who's criteria is the best and allows the resolution to reach the value.


 * Observations**: Observations are to be used to show the reasoning of how when we apply the criteria to the resolution, we can achieve the value. Facts and statistics are helpful, but reasoning process must be evident.


 * Critical arguments**: Not a fan of them. Just debate the resolution.


 * Questions?:** Please ask before the round.