Coleman,+Mack


 * School Affiliation:** Winston Churchill H.S. in San Antonio, TX
 * Schools I Attended In The Past:** Marcus High School in Dallas, TX
 * Number Of Years Judging:** I'm a second year out.
 * Speed:** I rarely, if ever, have an issue flowing people because of speed. That said, it's a relative assumption that I'm making by writing this. I have no objection to saying "clear" to let you know that I can't understand if and only if it's because you're going too fast.
 * Argument Preferences**: I do not have a preference on the type of argumentation that you run in any given round. I will not refuse to listen to anything. I have never voted against something merely because of the nature of the argument. That said, if it's something I'm not used to hearing then you should be willing to justify the interpretation in the round. My default assumption is that the round should be weighed by the standard. If nobody is justifying an alternative decision calculus, then I'll use this. I really prefer if you're going to run arguments like topicality that you structure them properly and weigh correctly.
 * Presumption:** I default negate. I see debate as a contest between individuals attempting to prove something true or not true. In general, if the resolution has not been proven true, I vote negative as the resolution is untrue (though not necessarily false).
 * Extensions**: I expect an extension of the entirety of the argument. This means you must extend the warrant/impact/link and weigh if you want me to vote on something offensively. This is very important if you are affirming--I do not give much leeway to the 1AR in this department.
 * Prestandards:** This type of argument is fine so long as (a) there is a clear and well substantiated reason for them to operate as offensive prior to the explicit standard and (b) there is an explanation of how we can make sense of how one can prove the resolution true or not true prior to the explicit standard. It may also be necessary to justify the hierarchy of your decision calculus if you're running multiple arguments before the standard. This is equally true in determining importance if your opponent is running similar prestandards stuff.
 * Speaker Points**: I give fairly good speaker points. I assign points more based on the level of argumentation in a round than on the presentation of the debater. This said, I will dock speaker points if your presentation is so bad that it hurts clarity. The only way to really get horribly low speaks with me is to be rude--I really dislike it if you try and act above someone.

I almost always give my RFD in person directly after the round. I have no problem with you asking questions or challenging my interpretation.

--Mack