Shelton,+Michael

__**Who Am I:**__ I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and am currently an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS.

__**General** **Approach:**__ It's your job to win my ballot, not mine. I'm willing to vote on a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons, but that's not a decision I want to have to make and I won't do any of your work for you (**i.e.** tell me what I should be voting on and why). If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then I expect you to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

__**Standard Operating Procedure:**__ //(How I will evaluate the round unless you win that I should do something different)// The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

__** Mechanics: **__ // (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it) //
 * **Signposting -** Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (**i.e.** if you read a turn, call it a turn). Tell me where the work you're doing goes and what it's responding to, I won't do it for you.
 * ** Delivery - ** I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody that I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you.
 * **Cross Examination -** Don't use cross-ex to make arguments, and don't badger each other incessantly. Make your point or get an answer, then move on.
 * ** Prep Time - ** I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer, but I won't take it upon myself to police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

__** Argumentation: **__ // (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. ////These are preferences, not rules; I've voted for teams that haven't done the things below and against teams that have.//// ) //
 * ** CPs/DAs - ** I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
 * ** Framework - ** I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets developed beyond each side establishing that they have a framework different from the other team.
 * **Kritiks -** I prefer that there is an alternative, and that it has a text. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative.
 * **Performance -** I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
 * **Procedurals -** I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
 * **Theory -** I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets developed beyond each side reading a frontline.

__**Miscellaneous:**__ //(These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)//
 * Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
 * Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
 * Impact calculus.
 * Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
 * The 2NR and 2AR are where you choose what to win the round on. I don't want you to try to win it multiple times in multiple ways, I want you to win it once and in the best way possible.
 * I won't ask for evidence after the round if there's any way to avoid it.

__** Zen: **__ // (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.) //
 * Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
 * It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
 * A round is nothing more than a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions, you'll win more times than you'll lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.