Shackelford,+Mike


 * Name ** Mike Shackelford
 * Affiliation ** : Head Coach for Rowland Hall
 * Additional School ** ** Conflicts ** :
 * Last Edited: ** 2/11/2018 (minor adjustments + student philosophies)
 * Years Coaching/Judging**: 15
 * Rounds on the Topic (Education):** ~35 (as of 1/12/18)

**If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy of any of my former debaters (including giving an RFD while impersonating them).**
Arsht, Andrew @Arsht, Ethan Bernstein, David @Burton, Chase @Friedman, Jordan Gordon, Emily Kovnick, Elliot Lessnick, Jaden Reed-Guevara, Camila Sugino, Corinne Walrath, Caitlin

Overview
Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible. Feel free to ask.

**Key Preferences & Beliefs**
Debate is a game. Literature determines fairness. It’s better to engage than exclude. Critique is a verb. Defense is undervalued.

**Judging Style**
I will work hard to be objective. I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, please request it. I think CX is very important. I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions. I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or hit 'send' for your email chain. I reserve the right to unilaterally assess a :10 to :30 second run-off for bad prep/paperless practices.

**Here are some other philosophies I can get behind (debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel):**
Steve Clemmons Jonah Feldman Nicholas Miller Claire McKinney Will Mosley-Jensen Gabe Murillo Toni Nielson Brian Rubaie jon sharp

**LD Paradigm**
Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.


 * Theory ** : I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.


 * Speed ** : Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.


 * Disclosure ** : I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.