Greenbury,+Michael

hi MTV, Michael Greenbury here, and welcome to my crib

Clovis North 2009-2013 University of California, Berkeley 2013-

anyone who brings me an appropriate snack will get a prize

shout out to the debaters - stay based, fam, I love you

__Policy here, scroll down for LD__
__**shorter version for before a round/if time-pressed and need t****o**__ **__pref me__ //(UPDATED 24 FEBRUARY 2015)//** -no ideological bias for or against certain forms of debate. they're all fun and valuable in ways that each of you debaters engenders during each round -framework debates are fun to watch but I often become frustrated because they become grandstanding and opinion on occasion. if framework is your strategy, I think I prefer the simple 'Topicality' version to the 'method' question, which is, to me, more ideologically driven than a simple question of fairness, limits, ground, etc. impacting those arguments well is very persuasive. -I want to say I will call for few pieces of evidence, but this is dependent on you. this means you should explain *why* your evidence is superior, and why evidence quality on an issue matters (impact the card) -Kritiks are cool, I enjoy the discussions they precipitate. I read some critical theory literature, but this area of study contains an exceptional multiplicity of competing authors and theories, so explanation is essential. explain the alternative and links well. I will say that I am fairly familiar with some specific areas in theory, such as theories on representation, political economy, aesthetics, gender, and the area I call 'witnessing'. Race and queer theory are areas I'm beginning to read more into, but am less proficient in. Specific authors I read in debate or in leisure time, and therefore feel I understand well, are Derrida, Baudrillard, Foucault, Nietzsche, Irigaray, Fanon, Marx (and many other Marxists), and psychoanalysts such as Lacan, Laplance, and Butler. -I never really got into super technical counterplan debate, so if the debate goes in that direction, simplification and clarify that leads me to the logical reason why I prefer a conditions CP or whatever you ran are essential. I know every judge says this, but this applies to theory as well - it really is just true that debaters benefit far more from slowing down on these portions of the debate that require technical precision and clarify. -please kick arguments correctly. I don't like when you make me kick your CPs for you and you are responsible for offense read by the aff. -I have a high threshold to vote on theoretical reasons to reject a team, but am more amenable to theoretical reasons to reject certain arguments -on paper, I am not the fastest at flowing. but, if you see me flowing on a laptop I'm much faster. adjust or don't- it hurts you to be unclear when I don't understand your arguments. -I like to vote on arguments in the final two speeches that have been developed since the 2AC/block onward, but a creative 1AR argument can become slayer and really fun to watch -please be kind and respectful, unless this is part of your argument. I may be sympathetic to small, public schools with no budgets (where I'm from) who have never heard of Wilderson, Baudrillard, etc. if you're crushing and you're unnecessarily disrespectful (i.e. you've already won the debate, why are you hurting their feelings as well?), I may take off speaker points. I've been told I can be guilty of this too, and nothing disheartens me more as a debater than being told I was being a jerk to newly-open debaters. At those times, winning feels almost irrelevant.

__**longer version if time not an issue/you care about what I think about debate**__ **//(OLD)//** I debated for 4 years in high school, but my experience was largely not on the circuit and instead with regional debate. I had minimal exposure to national level competition until I began debating for Cal, this past year. my knowledge of the activity has since exploded, and I think I'm qualified to judge your debate. if not, then don't pref me. even though I may not have the same experience as some other judges, I care deeply about intellectual integrity and about this activity and will put the totality of my focus into judging to the best of my ability. I expect that debaters work hard and care, and I, as a judge, should as well. I've been all speaker positions at one time or another - being the only debater in your region with even minimal exposure to the circuit does this to you. I usually try to flow on paper, whatever this means for how I judge. it usually means that I try to listen more intently, as opposed to writing down every word you say. in this case, I like to think while I listen (if I can). I might express my thoughtfulness non-verbally, but don't take any facial expressions as a disagreement with your argument. you're just making me think - this is a good thing. I tend to vote off my flow by a process I explain further down, but I can be persuaded to think without the flow if that's how you, the debaters, want me to think.

you should explain things to me - always be explaining things.

how I generally evaluate arguments: a) in the 2N/AR b) developed since early in the debate c) what arguments answer each other d) how well they were explained and impacted e) what part of the flow they clear up f) fit this part into the debate holistically

**for speaks, I begin at 27.5** and go up and down throughout the debate. good things to improve your speaks: be courteous (unless part of your argument); be efficient; be strategic; be passionate (especially if part of your argument); clarity when speaking. bad things that hurt your speaks: rudness (see above); inefficiency; strategic errors that run the risk ofcosting you the round; lack of clarity, especially if trying to go too quickly.

T: competing interpretations are solid. please impact them well. if you are reading T against an aff at the core of the topic, it's probable that I may be persuaded by reasonability. yet, any core aff should be prepared to smack down these T violations.

Framework: I've read non-traditional affs as well as more traditional, policy affs. I think that framework should be a question of what benefits the people in this space and perhaps people outside this space as connected to what occurs here. warranted arguments about why your interpretation of framework does something good for us in here, and maybe some external actors, would be a good decision. ostensibly, framework is a question of how I view the round (ask yourself: how is he going to evaluate arguments? how will he apply significance?). so, be sure to explain why your framework means I prefer X impact over Y, etc. if a framework goes uncontested (say, by the negative on a K), then I evaluate the debate through this framework. debate is surely a pedagogical activity. it is also a competitive activity and - this is what I think people forget to emphasize - a *fun* activity. I would say my views on debate are nuanced. I've read and gone for the politics DA as well as Ks and no-plan affs because I think these all provide valuable, fun, and educational experiences. I don't think that anyone has to read the same arguments all of the time, but there might be reasons why one argument (or style of argument) t should generally be preferred - give me reasons why you think this is true. as I'm still young in my debate career, I find myself open to arguments about framework.

Kritiks: I'm not overly familiar with the multiplicity of authors under the umbrella of critical theory. I do enjoy reading them, though, and therefore think that this form of discussion is fun and intellectually stimulating and valuable. I've given many 2ACs/2ARs on these arguments while reading a more traditional aff, and I think that most FW debates result in the aff getting their advantages anyways. going for a K in the 2NR, therefore, is not an excuse to ignore the case - it is the aff's greatest weapon and too many teams who are winning the K don't explain the sequence in which I evaluate the K over the aff. please understand your K - I cannot fill in for you, even if I know and enjoy the work of this particular author. some authors I do know about are: Derrida, Nietzsche, Marx, Foucault, Lacan, Butler, and some other rhetoric authors. I am currently doing a lot of work (relative to where I am as an undergraduate) in the Rhetoric department here at Cal. my knowing what you are talking about might be an implicit benefit, but explanation is always good and is always necessary in an activity where I evaluate what is said. my knowledge likely just means I'm familiar with vocabulary. having said that, I am a bit pedantic about vocabulary confusion with critical theory and have a huge issue with casually throwing around terms like 'ontological', 'Foucault(d?)ian', etc. be sure to explain the alt and links very well, and play defense to the perm. for the aff, explain how the permutation would resolve any of the links and what occurs with any residual links. often, people forget that the permutation is a test of competition - utilize this definition of the perm to get you out of wacky situations where the neg says that you haven't 'performed the alt' or something.

DAs: are cool. compare the relative risk of the DA to the relative risk of the aff's advantage(s). a good overview is a great place to hide arguments, and I think that smaller overviews over specific components are smart (over the link, etc). sequencing arguments on the DA vs the aff are also really awesome. I'm persuaded by turns case args. core DAs are fine and probably have a place in debate, but if contested, please explain the pedagogical utility to the politics DA - it probably exists. more specific DAs are better just on the level of persuasiveness and strategic value - if you researched more, you'll have them and be in a better place in the roudn and I'll likely reward this research and prep w/speaks.

CPs: once more, I really enoy CP/DA debates. hopefully the CP solves some or all of the aff - maybe it solve better, but I'm not sure this is your best strategy. have a solid net benefit the the CP can access but the plan cannot, like a DA to the aff. most counterplan options are fine, but there might be theoretical reasons why certain CPs, like delay or consult, might not be legitimate. I have minimal exposure to more complex theory arguments and especially Word PIC theory. as for responding to CPs on the aff, extend key 1AC warrants that identify the plan as uniquely key to solving internal links to your advantages. similarly, the block should identify how the CP is capable of solving these internal links.

good case debate and defense are under-utilized and can make for very good debates - I think there is such a thing as 0% risk, or no risk, however you wish to put it.

__LD people look here__
__**If you don't want t****o read and just want to pref/strike**__: College policy debater with LD judging experience. Mostly K knowledge/experience, will be fine in policy debates as I judge those too.

As you can tell, I'm most well learned in policy debate, which I have competed in on the national circuit level in college for several years and for years more in hs

The things I know I need to communicate are that:

your theory shells should be very clear - this isn't precisely how we present theory args in policy so just make sure I know the theoretical objection you are debating and why it means you do/do not lose the debate.

if someone introduces framework, I expect it to be a framework that actually frames how I view the debate and my decision. I mean if your opponent drops it and you don't extend it that's fine but then why did you read it for two minutes of the 1AC...

basically do your LD thing and if it's something you know a policy judge might be ignorant of just take a sec to explain. I'm not the friendliest on appearance but I welcome any questions!