Soneff,+Michael

I debated LD for Brentwood HS until I graduated in 2009, and since then I haven't been involved.

I like "traditional" debate. Generally speaking, I think the NFL's topics are pretty interesting, so I really like cases that actually deal with the substance of the subject. I like to see comparative standards debate, explicit impact analysis, and direct weighing of arguments. Crystallize in your rebuttals! I'm a lot more likely to vote for a person who tells me a story that clearly evaluates the key issues in the round. In other words, help me write my ballot.


 * SPEED.** I'm not the fastest pen in the west, so if you're going to speed, be super clear. My flowing is not what it once was, so adjust accordingly. I won't vote on what I don't have on the flow, and I won't vote for completely undeveloped arguments.


 * THEORY.** Be warned: it's really really hard to get me to vote on theory. I'm much more likely to exclude abusive arguments than I am to vote off of them. I think there's almost always a remedy for abuse other than awarding a win. I don't enjoy judging theory rounds, so don't run it unless you really need it. Do not intentionally bait theory in front of me.

**PRE-STANDARDS ARGUMENTS.** Tell me why your argument comes before the standard. If you do not, I cannot evaluate it. "A priori" is not a warrant for anything.


 * CRITICAL ARGUMENTS. ** I am happy to evaluate almost any kind of argument you want to make. I'm not very well read in the popular critical authors, and I'm not very familiar with jargon. If you're going to run something fancy, you better explain the argument, and why I need to vote on it.


 * MY BALLOT IS NOT YOUR PLATFORM FOR SPEECH.** Sorry, I just don't believe my ballot is going to change the world. It'd be awesome if I could start the revolution with my pen, but sadly, I don't have that kind of power.

Very little offends me, and I generally try to approach debates with a very open mind. That said, respect your opponent, and have fun.