Wimsatt,+Michael

Hello! I am Michael and I debated 4 years in high school for San Dieguito Academy and am a freshman debater at Berkeley.


 * Tech>Truth **


 * Smart/logical analytics beat stupid arguments **


 * Flashing=/=Prep ** but don’t abuse it. Stealing prep=lower speaks. You think you’re sneaky…….but you’re really not.

Translation: Strike me
 * Nontraditional: ** I strongly believe that the affirmative must **__defend they hypothetical implementation of a topical plan by the United States federal government.__** It will be excruciatingly difficult to convince me otherwise and a mildly competent extension of framework will be sufficient for me to vote against a non-traditional affirmative.


 * Topicality ** : I don’t have any strong feelings here. Specificity of a case-list and exactly what their interpretation allows are appreciated.


 * Theory ** is a reason to reject the argument not the team except in the case of condo, unless I am told otherwise. That’s just a default though and can be easily reversed. Drop initially impacted cheap shots and I’ll vote neg without remorse.


 * Critiques ** are either really good or really bad. The more specific they are, the better and the higher your odds of success. If this becomes a Floating PIK please make me aware of that before the 2NR. I do not think “the alt solves the case” is code for “we do the aff” and if you make a floating PIK argument it needs to be very explicit. Affs really need to make the “this makes zero sense” argument against crazy postmodern stuff b/c that’s likely what I’m thinking already……negs would be well served to explain esoteric stuff.


 * Disadvantages ** are good. Disad/Case debates are my favorite types of debates to watch.


 * Counter plan ** debates are fun. Even though cheater counter plans (earmarks, recommendation, xo, etc.) were my bread and butter in high school I really do not enjoy these debates although I understand their strategic benefit. That said, if you find an aff-specific solvency advocate for any of these (i.e. an advocate for something like a reg neg //about the given aff//) I will be very impressed and think you’re pretty shielded from theory if you say it’s grounded in the literature base.


 * Case ** is essential. I do believe in zero risk even within an offense defense paradigm. If the 1ac bioterror impact card is Ochs and the neg reads 3 cards that there is no motive and the 2ac says “extend Ochs, bioterror causes extinction”, //they do not have an advantage//. If the 1nc reads some cards on misallocation/cronyism/etc dooming federal projects and the 2ac extends that their tech is feasible //there is zero risk of solvency// when this is impacted properly. While impact defense is good, internal link/solvency presses are even better.


 * Cross-X ** is underrated. It is binding and it’s a speech. I like aggressive cross-xers and I doubt I’ll think you’re mean unless you cuss them out or something. The only caveat to this rule is if you are conclusively winning/debating novices who should not be in varsity you should be as nice as possible.


 * I don’t call for many cards ** so if their link ev is terrible you need to say that


 * I’ll yell clear three times **, then I stop flowing you and do my own debate work.


 * Speaker Point Scale: **
 * 30 ** is my personal endorsement of you as top speaker
 * 29.5 ** is a top competitor at the tournament, I think you should be in deep elim rounds
 * 29 ** is very good, should make it very far at the tournament
 * 28.5 ** is good, approaching 29s but missing some stylistic finess
 * 28 ** is good but missing some strategic understanding of the game
 * 27.5 ** is average but showing signs of improvement
 * 27 ** is average
 * 26.5 ** is for somebody a bit in over their heads but trying/showing signs of improvement
 * 26 ** is for somebody clearly out of the right division and not trying
 * 25.5 and below ** is for somebody being offensive
 * 0 ** you should stop clipping

-I like to reward hard working debaters and case specific neg strats/hyper-specific link turns showcase this to me a lot more than XO/Ptx -Be clear -Be smart -Compare evidence -A little snarkiness never hurt (and is encouraged) but don’t be mean -Exploit their contradictions! If they read neolib and a trade da concede the trade impact and you only need half as many neolib answers!
 * How to get better speaker points in front of me: **

-Non-traditional debate -Saying “K framework is key to small schools keeping up with research”……it’s really not, you just need to work harder -Poor strategic decisions -Not making logical arguments -Conspiracy Theories/Wipeout……just no.
 * My pet peeves: **