Clark,+Michael

__**Background**__ I was not involved in debate in High School, so I don't have a lot of that type of background. I got involved in judging tournaments last year when my oldest son starting debating. He was involved in Lincoln Douglas, so I tried judging those rounds when I attended. I am an Electrical Engineer, 20 years of experience. I have been very active in politics over the years, being county and state delegate several years for the local political party, representing my district. I have judged a lot of rounds over the last year and a half; probably 20 or more. I am familiar with the process of a LD Debate and I know more than a bit about the topics presented as my son and I discuss topics and debate philosophies quite a bit at home.

__**Judging style and process**__ My judging philosophy follows the Value/Criteria/Contention flow. Being an engineer, I have made a spreadsheet to help me in my judging. Since I type much faster than I write, I use my laptop to help me keep track of the flow of the debate. I want to know what your Value, Criteria, and all of your Contentions are and very clearly. I enter those in my spreadsheet and then track how you and your opponent make points or attacks on those contentions. I have devised a number scheme to score each contention and then add (or take away) points from that score based on your ability to convince me of the validity of your contention (or to get me to agree to your attacks on your opponent's contentions). At the end of the debate, I use these scores to help me determine who won the debate, because that debater convinced me the most of his contentions (or attacks on opponent's contentions).

If you like to talk fast, I am fine with it, to a point. I have tried to judge policy debates where "spewing" is the norm. I don't like spewing. Fast talking is one thing, but spewing is for the birds (I'll never judge a policy debate again). One thing you better be sure of is that I get your value, criteria, and contentions; to do that SPEAK THOSE CLEARLY AND CONCISELY! I find contentions to be very weak if I can't understand what you are contending. Obviously, if I get a speech or two into the round and I still don't know your contention, you are going to score weaker on those contentions.

I also track dropped contentions and score them very highly for your opponent when they are dropped. If you miss them, I assume you mean you agree with them, which is a big score for your opponent. I score higher when you pick up and make a big deal of your opponent dropping (if they do). I also tend to give Affirm the benefit of the doubt because of the disadvantage in speech times, in the interest of fairness. However, I also tend to hit Neg harder if they miss because of their time advantage on speeches. That by no means implies I agree more often with Affirm or Neg; just a little benefit of the doubt in the interest of fairness.

I consider most topics to be optimal with 3 contentions. Less than that doesn't seem to cover enough to prove a position, while more than that seems to cause time problems with speeches. You certainly are free to use as many contentions as you like, but in my opinion, 3 is about right.

__**Timing of speeches**__ I am fine with you timing your own speeches. I keep time, and my timer is law, be it faster or slower than your timer. I also claim the right to allow someone to finish a sentence or question after the timer goes off. But, again, it's my call. If you keep talking after the timer, I wont stop you. I just start knocking off speaker points.

__**Disclosure**__ Most tournaments don't allow judges to disclose or provide feedback. I don't care if they do or not; I don't disclose or provide verbal feedback. Tournaments go way too long as it is without extra time expended in disclosure or feedback. Additionally, if you lost, you almost certainly consider me a fool and worthy of adamant debate proving you are more than worthy of winning. I don't come to tournaments to debate you. Just judge. So even if you see me wandering around afterwards and ask me how you did, I am going to tell you I don't remember (which is probably true), and either way, I don't want to debate. Even if you are sincere and would take constructive criticism, my memory (and desire) just isn't good enough to give you want you seek. Take my written remarks on the ballot for what they are and that will be what you get. I will make an effort to be as detailed as I can as to why I voted for or against you. Sometimes it is obvious who won; sometimes it is a hard choice and I wish I didn't have to make either of you lose. But there can only be one winner and one of you will hate me for my position. I prefer to be well within the confines of anonymity when you find out what I said bad about you.

__**Speaker Points**__ I generally take the 30 points you receive and break them down by speech (Affirm has 4 speeches, 1 cross ex, so 6 points per event. Neg has 3 and 1 cross ex,, so 7.5 per event). Depending on your performance during that event, I rate you based on performance in that event. I may dock points for being disorganized, being rude, being belligerent, not speaking clearly, etc. based on how you perform in each event. I rarely take off more than 1 point per event. So a good solid performance in each event will garner a good speaker point score.

__**Major annoyances**__ Most techniques of debate I am fine with. Contention is fine, but rudeness rubs me wrong. It grates me a bit, but I won't nail you too hard, unless you are really bad. One thing really irritates me in debates: the "straw man" technique. If you don't know what that is, look it up. It really gets my goat. One debate I judged, a debater deployed the straw man technique and I stopped caring what either person's criteria or points even were. Straw man is dishonest, unfair, and wrong! If you use it in a debate I judge, you guarantee a loss. It can happen inadvertently, and I understand that, but pounding it home will waste your time and mine.