Abraham,+Michael

Hey.

I’m a freshman at NYU, and I debated for Eastside Catholic in the Seattle area my junior and senior years of high school on both the WA and national circuits.

Here are the most important things you need to know about me:

First and foremost, I will vote on anything assuming you win it, meaning you win the warrants in your arguments. I will not extend an argument across the flow if you do not extend the warrant. Tell me why I am voting for you, make it clear and make it concise. This is the easiest way to win my ballot, and it is also the easiest way to get high speaks.

Second and equally as important, impact your arguments. I need to know not only why the argument matters, but also what it means in the round in order to be convinced that it is a game-over issue for your opponent. I will not accept impacts in empty space; there needs to be a clearly defined standard through which I can lens the round. As much as we pretend otherwise sometimes, debate is still an avatar of formal logic. The number of cards you read does not matter to me; the linkstory, however, is extremely important. If you are winning clear links to your standard OR you are winning a sufficient number of turns under your opponent’s standard to outweigh, you should be solid. (I am a huge fan of straight ref. If you can do it well, by all means feel free).

Third, I think pre-fiat arguments are the some of the most interesting and also most effective when done well. Like anything else in round I expect your arguments to be warranted, your internal links to be sound, and your impacts to be clear. I like the K, but I hate a sloppy linkstory in a K. The internal links are the most important part of the K debate for me, and if they aren’t there then the K does not function. That said, I will not intervene just because I don’t like your case (this applies to both the aff and the neg). If your opponent doesn’t do the necessary work and you are giving me a clear way to vote for you I will do so.

I will not drop you for offensive arguments; however, if you are being excessively homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. you will see a significant drop in your speaks. I think a reasonably good performance in round is usually around a 28. Low point wins do happen.

Speed is fine. I will yell ‘clear’ as many times as necessary; I care about what you’re saying far more than how you’re saying it, but debate is a verbal activity. Don’t alienate me as your judge by speaking poorly. Please slow down marginally for author names. Also, if you can avoid it there is no need to rush through a card. I like to hear your warrants.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round. I don’t foresee any problems, and I look forward to meeting you guys.

P.S. NOTHING will ruin my day more than gunning for a specious extinction impact. I’ll vote for it if you win it, but I find these arguments incredibly difficult to win, and I would strongly suggest that you do not run them in front of me.

Best of luck.

—Michael