Raposo,+Mike

Updated 1/12/14

Short Version: I debated for Bishop Guertin High School for four years in high school where I competed at the national level. I graduated in 2013 and I currently attend George Mason University where I do not currently debate. Lexington will be the first tournament I will be judging on the topic, so my familiarity with the topic is minimal.

I tend to think of myself as more policy minded but I am open to any and all arguments. I also think that dropped arguments are probably true arguments. I don't think that anyone can be totally "tabula rasa" but I'll try to be as open minded as possible and my more specific preferences are outlined below. I will not do work for you, please do not expect me to, I evaluate the round based off the flow and if you think you win because of x,y,z reasons, then be sure to clearly articulate that in your final rebuttal.

Long Version: Speed: As you long as you are clear, I'm fine with it. In high school I competed on the National Circuit and competed at all the major tournaments so I am very familiar with spreading and am quite capable of flowing. Do keep in mind that I have not been involved with debate since the end of last year.

Topicality: Fine, I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise. I think a well articulated topicality argument can be an effective weapon, however I do think there is a place for non-topical/non-resolutional affs just as long as you can justify your decision. I think that having a plan text is an important part of any affirmative, but I also recognize the strategic value of not having a plan text.

Impact turns: My favorite! I think that impact turning is an often underutilized strategy in debate and that even absurd impact turns can be very strategic and win debates.

Disads: Go for it! I think that case specific disads are much more effective than just the generic politics DA. I also think that when debating the disad impact articulation is one of the most important aspects of that debate and understanding how the impacts of the DA interact with those of the aff is crucial to winning the debate.

Counterplans: Great! I think that advantage counterplans are awesome. I also think that a well written PIC can be devastating and that the affirmative should be able to defend every aspect of the plan. With though I do think process counterplans are shady and open to theoretical objections. I also think that agent CPs are legitimate so feel free to run them.

Kritiks: I do tend to think I am a more policy minded judge, as a 2A I read primarily affs in high school and tended to lean that way in neg debates as well. I will certainly vote on the K as long as it is clearly explained and articulated throughout the round. I didn't really read any critical literature in high school and certainly haven't in college, so please do NOT assume I have read whatever book your card is from/citing because I haven't because if you read a bunch of Deleuze evidence and don't explain it, I am very unlikely to vote for you.

Theory: I don't really like theory all that much. I understand its strategic value and I definitely think it has a place in debate, I just think it is a very stale and boring debate. I'll probably default to conditionality unless told otherwise, and I think that most theoretical objections are reject the argument not the team. Also please slow down when reading theory.

Performance: Probably not the judge for you.