Tilley,+Michael

=Michael Tilley (Iowa City, IA)=

I debated in college (1996 – 2000) for 3 years, coached my college team for one year, and a high school team for another year. Most of my experience as a debater was in a policy-making framework, and my typical negative strategy was topicality, politics disad, and an economic disad with significant case debate. I would also regularly run agent or plan inclusive counterplans as appropriate. On occasion, I would run a critique if it applied particularly well, or if I need a particular competitive advantage.


 * Framework and Theory**

There are certain arguments that are more persuasive than others to me. Despite this, I try to minimize my subjective preferences as much as possible and will typically make decisions based on the decision calculus most clearly and persuasively defended in the debate. But I am unlikely to vote for a position unless the argument (a) makes a claim, (b) has some form of evidentiary or argumentative support, and (c) the impact of the claim is spelled out in terms of the other arguments in the debate.


 * Topicality**

Topicality is typically the first issue I will evaluate in a debate round. My decisions about topicality are usually based on comparisons of interpretations based on the types and number of cases allowed by each of these interpretations. This, of course, assumes that both teams present an interpretation of the term or phrase in question. If no affirmative interpretation is presented, either implicitly or explicitly, then the violation debate will be more important. It is also not necessary to establish in round abuse. If the negative team has a compelling case concerning topicality, then I have qualms about voting for it.


 * Counterplans**

I think most counterplans are justified. I have no problems with plan-inclusive counterplans, and I tend to think that the negative always can resort to the status quo. Still, if the counterplan explicitly rules out the status-quo option, either in cross-examination or otherwise, then I will not evaluate the status quo as an option. All counterplan and permutation text should be written out clearly. I am also very unlikely to vote for a (intrinsicness) permutation that includes something independent of the plan/counterplan, or a (severance) permutation that fails to include all parts of the plan.


 * Critiques**

I have no problems with the affirmative or negative argument using critiques or other performative arguments to demonstrate the desirability or undesirability of the plan. These arguments should be explained well and be clearly impacted.


 * Style**

I prefer not to read evidence from a debate round, and will generally attempt to make decisions that do not rely on reading evidence. There are exceptions to this in certain cases, such as if the content of the evidence is in question or perhaps if the evidence is especially important to a particular argument. I also find clear and well structured positions to be more persuasive than having multiple, less well-developed positions. This is especially true in the final rebuttals. I do not judge as frequently as I once did, so explaining acronyms may be more important. I am able to flow fast debates so long as the speakers clearly enunciate and aren't extremely blippy. If a speaker is going too fast (i.e., they can't enunciate at that speed, or the arguments are too blippy to catch appropriately), then I will call out "slower" once. If my suggestion is not heeded (which you will be able to tell by looking to see if I am flowing), then I may miss some of your arguments and your speaker points will be docked.