Harris,+Michael+D

I did LD for four years in high school. I can handle speed and am fine with theory, k, disads, etc. Generally I'm pretty easy on speaks and care about clarity and wit. But if a debater actually tries to go for a slower, rhetorically nuanced speech, she'll earn my respect and I'll give out speaks like I was judging a speech event - though the round stays on the flow. Similarly, there's a way to debate that's earnest and real and there's a way to debate that's complicated and game-like. I'm really fine with either, but do it well and try to avoid a tepid confusing mix, give me genuine or give me jank.

All that said, I judge from the flow and will work with what you give me, with one minor caveat. I do have a threshold for most arguments - very low for anything on case, a little higher for anything a priori or any crazy theory. I have no problem throwing out really blippy args if I think they're ridiculously untrue. If you want something to stick, put at least a little work in.

I'm fine with flex time if you use it to do more cx.

Debate well (actually clash, engage on values, balance and outweigh etc.) Debate clearly (signpost, set burdens, crystalize voters, balance and outweigh etc.) Don't be an idiot (I know a bit about this fall's topic, try to make sure you do too - I'll ignore uncited bs I know to be false) Don't be a douchebag (also, no nukes or Nazis unless you really, seriously mean it)