Arnold,+Michael

Paradigm updated Jan. 2013 I’m Michael Arnold. I graduated in 2006 from Niwot High School in Colorado. I debated for two years, one on the national circuit. I won a bid tournament, qualled to the TOC and was Top 14 at Nationals. While I don't have my finger on the pulse of the activity now, I've judged at least a few circuit tournaments every year.

The things you want to know: - Speed and clarity. My ideal debate tempo is on the fast side of brisk, but I can keep up with all but the very fastest national circuit LD rounds. More important is clarity, particularly of author names, exact phrasing of criteria or burdens, etc. I will yell clear once: after that, you should just notice if I stop flowing (it will be obvious). - Broadly speaking, I will vote on anything. My default way of evaluating the round is a truth-testing paradigm and in normal rounds, I see who wins a value criteria and then who has more offense that links back to it, but all of this is defeasible if you win arguments and can explain it coherently. - Theory. I really don't like theory; I will vote on it, but I don't like to and I really hate rounds where it becomes the dominant issue. Two warnings: (1) I understand theory much worse than I understand most parts of debate, and (2) if you run it when it's not absolutely necessary you won't get good speaks. - Various stylistic things. I don't care if you sit or stand, use a computer or paper. I tend to like average-quality brisk debate more than average-quality slow debate, but I’m very impressed by great strategic and word-economical slow debate. My speaker points are an arbitrary assessment of how good, smart and strategic I think you are and where (or whether) I think you should break. I’m stingy with 30s. I have an idiosyncratic preference for aggressive debate: forceful, confident, blunt, even belligerent debate is all fine by me. - I'm pretty set in the belief that all my ballot means is my choice for who wins the competitive debate I'm looking at. I don't see my ballot as a statement with transcendent meaning, a political act, etc. Accordingly, I don't recommend running micropolitics in front of me, although I have voted for it. - When debaters are mad at my decision, almost always the problem is either a failure to extend properly (there must be warrants and impacts making it to the end of the round) or a failure to weigh and compare arguments.

If there are any other questions, just ask me.