Skeean,+Omega

I debated for three years for Dexter High School and for three years at the University of Michigan.

About me: I debated at Dexter High school in Dexter, MI for three years and then at the University of Michigan for another three years. I have been judging since the beginning of the 08-09 season. I haven't judged at any high school tournaments so far this year, but I judged at the UMich camp tournament this summer.

Paperless stuff-Debates between paperless and non-paperless teams are annoying. Try to be conscientious to minimize this. Prep time ends when your flash drive has left your computer.
 * Philosophy:**

Good debate is a combination of good evidence (for arguments that require it) and good argumentation. So although I will read cards in order to get a clearer picture of the debate after a round, to a certain extent I expect the debaters to do the evidence comparison for me.

Above all I want people to debate in ways that they are comfortable doing so. Keep that in mind when considering any preferences I may state. Debate is usually at its best when everyone runs arguments they have researched and are passionate about. When I judge I try to evaluate the round based on the arguments on the flow, and I try not do too much work for the debaters. Most if not all of my preferences can be overcome by clear, well-reasoned and well-supported arguments. That said, here is a brief list of some of my preferences for those interested:


 * Speaker points:** I think I am pretty middle of the road about these. It is hard to get below a 27 or above a 28.5 in front of me.


 * Clarity:** is paramount. I am fine judging pretty much every speed imaginable, but you must be clear on tags and theory especially. I will warn you twice about this, and then cede the interpretation of your speeches to your opponents.


 * In-round conduct:** tag teaming and prompting are not only fine, but probably sometimes key to educational debate. If it gets truly excessive, I might drop speaks for the person who is being walked all over. I will not tell you to be nice, because I recognize that sometimes you need to be assertive to get your point across. But please don't be a jerk. I can parse between assertiveness and assholishness, and if I mention your demeanor in my critique, I probably docked speaks for it.


 * Now, specific arguments:**
 * Kritiks:** I have never been much of a K debater, although I do read a fair amount of critical literature in the course of my studies and in my free time. I guess what you should take out of that is that you should maybe expend a little more effort explaining your argument's place in debate to me and a little less time going over literature I'm probably familiar with and/or sympathetic to the arguments of.


 * Topicality:** I don't really think that strict adherence to a competing interpretations framework is good for debate. I don't think the aff necessarily needs to meet the best possible interpretation of the topic for the debate to be fair and educational.


 * Theory**: gaaahhh. I hate judging theory debates. Most high school theory debates tend to be a lot of tagline extensions and reading blocks back and forth. Gag me with a spoon. Unless you explain why I should pull the trigger exceptionally well, most theory arguments are a reason to reject the arg and not the team, regardless of how badly your opponents covered it. If you are going for theory, you should probably commit a good portion of your last rebuttal to it or I will be hesitant to decide the round on it.


 * Performance/Identity:** I don't have a problem with them but the truth is I have very little experience with judging or debating these types of arguments. So.. just try to explain yourself in a way that I'll understand (not sure how to say without that sounding like I mean that traditional debate should be the default--really I'm just vastly more familiar with it).


 * Bad words**: debate is a speech activity and as such the words you use to construct your arguments are relevant to the debate at hand. Don't say offensive things (and I'm not really talking about cuss words here, as I curse like a sailor myself) unless you're prepared to defend their assumptions.