Pulver,+Michael

2017 Grad from Athens High School Current Debater for the University of North Texas pulverizer1997@icloud.com Policy Debate Paradigm - **Let's set some goals while you are reading:** 1. Don't think you can't run something because you've heard some lay judge or parent judge call your argument stupid. (I will listen to your argument) 2. I don't assume debate is set in stone. If you think something is questionable, don't hesitate to ask me prior to the round. 3. I've been having this issue where debaters seem to think flows across pages seem to not matter. I think you can't read multiple worlds and not be subject to the offense that makes those worlds contradict. **Speaks-** It is difficult for me to set an arbitrary standard for speaker points because, at the end of the day, it's simple: bad debate can lead to bad speaker points. Bad debating is hard to delineate sometimes and that's why it's difficult for me to just give out 30's or whatever number suffices. BUT I give speaks off of criteria; like good line-by-line, really good offense, not putting the decision so much in my lap and pointing out the obvious decision. If you want to crack jokes for speaks, I might laugh but that doesn't mean more speaks. It'd be a joke if you're wasting your time; so don't waste mine. In conclusion, I'd say I tend to put higher speaks for great-good debaters (anywhere between 30-28). Bad debating does, sadly, mean less speaks (27-25). And please don't make me go lower.... just, please. **Speaking Style-** - Speed? Go for it. - Caveat? Absolutely. Don't think I can understand you if your mouth isn't annunciating clearly. AND I DO MEAN CLEARLY. - Clear? Sure. I will say clear if I can't understand you. Just please don't make me say it more than once. **Debate Arguments -** **T/Framework-** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I'll default to the 2AC interpretation unless the block gives me a reason not to. Standards should not be quick blips of words. I think an in-depth debate on T/Frameworks does often come down to how well the standards debate is handled so if you're not providing internal links to offense, then why you reading it? Additionally, voters and impacts to framing should also be treated this way. "Voters are for fairness and education" is not a voter at all. I want a reason for why that's true in the context of your T/Framework. Please provide strong voters as it can save you in a debate. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Ks-** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Can you run them? Yeah. But that doesn't mean you just read a shell and expect me to put the pieces in place because by the time we get to the 2NR and all you are hanging onto is a link of omission, then I can't help you. I also can say that certain alternatives make sense more than others. I just believe frameworks and ROBs contextualize the reasons the alternative is preferable to the status quo or the plan. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**K Affs-** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Pretty much all the reasons above are good except a few caveats. I think you should be sitting on internal links to offense more in the rebuttals as reasons to prefer. Additionally, I do buy that you can endorse fiat, however, I need to know the function of the state to understand your affirmative. It helps me out. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**CP/DA-** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">CPs are cool with me. Just have a net-benefit of some sort and explain how that net-benefit is a much more damning reason to vote negative. I do not believe you absolutely need to solve or avert a DA in order to get a net-benefit but you do need at least a card explaining how the CP is mutually better. Let's look at how I feel on specific CPs: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- PICs: Unless you have some good theory, doing all of the affirmative is shaky. Some parts? I can roll with it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Delay: Good with me. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Consult: No Problem. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Agent: I really buy that this isn't real fiat but I will listen. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Disads that have specific links to affirmatives are golden. Do good during the block to read a link wall or build a solid internal link story to push my love for your DA. For politics or elections, I can seriously buy the argument that certain polling data is not a good starting point for uniqueness. I think this is relatively true with all DAs in their fundamental studies but I think politics can be absolutely crushed if the 2AC just reads of card talking about why the DA polling data isn't good data because they use robocalls or whatever. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Theory** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">A debate has no rules. If you think some should be made, then do it. However, don't read theory shells just to read them. If clear abuse is present, then it's on you to point it out. All my weighing of the theory of the debate is the same as my explanation of T/Framework above. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Everything above stays relatively similar. I judge LD and Policy in a similar fashion. I'll point where I'm different below and If nothing is written below on an argument then I have a no different paradigm of that argument in LD or Policy. However, I do recognize that LD is becoming more policy every day but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate your traditional argumentation. Keep this in mind: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">1. LD doesn't provide much time for dense conversations but the more you can give me, the better. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">2. The subjectivity of values and criterions is the biggest problem, in my mind, of LD on traditional and national circuits so I try to keep myself objective as possible when weighing the round. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">3. Keep your offense driven towards more ontological discussions than real-world implications, at least within V/C debate. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**V/C-** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Value debate is pretty simple: don't use the rhetorical offense that revolves around you saying my value is better than their value because.... I don't care because that isn't offense. Tell me how that value has deficits to the topic or even to the real world. Otherwise, I have no problem with anything so long as it makes total sense. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Roll of the Ballot/ of the Judge or whatever** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I have no problem with them and I think they've become an attraction to debaters but I would like to remind you that both debaters are not looking for the best alternative to defeat capitalism, you are really looking for the better debating. You do not provide a certain gateway to the monolith that is the debate. I find these arguments more entertaining because they do not clash with any intention but can give me a goal post to hang onto at the end of the round when I'm either blown away by great debating or trying to find a reason to vote for either team when the debating was poor. Take that how you will. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Other things-** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Want to flash your evidence? Do it but be quick. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Think someone is doing stuff to undermine the debate? Tell me during the round and I will fix it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Your partner isn't great at answering questions and you want to join in? Go right ahead. However, if a tournament has rules against it, can't help you then. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Be respectful to your opponents and audience members. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Don't be afraid to ask questions prior to round and have fun.