Michael Greenbury ParadigmLast changed 2/16 8:14P PDT
Not much experience on this topic
Been away from the scene for the past semester. Don't worry, I can still listen to speed, but you might want to assume I'm not fully aware of all the topic details.
I like K debate. Prefer poststructuralism or whatever you call it - would probably be what I have the most experience in. Performance debate is cool. Policy debate is good too, just not what I did for the most part. Good plans with solid solvency mechanisms vs intriguing CP/DAs are always engaging to judge for me but politics debates are boring so if you come with generics you better do it right. I consider myself open minded but I do find myself unpersuaded by the same generics FW args that teams have been reading since 2015. Try explaining things in new ways, using new words and examples. I will reward that.
almost all ideas are fair game, except those which offend or harm other people. please use common sense in this regard or I'll dock speaks.
very few rounds on the policy topic, please explain any acronyms or details that one might assume a judge with experience on the topic would understand
speed is fine
argument flexibility is fine and good
focus on explaining things; less is more
”debate does not necessarily take the form of a disagreement; it can yield a more complex disimplication or displacement”
i don’t vote on things not In the final speeches
2017 for Stanford
Very few (<20) rounds on the topic. Mostly policy, weirdly, but it's been three months. Please explain any terms (locations, documents, events, concepts, etc.) that may require more experience.
Aside: the term high theory now for me demonstrates the general implosion of meaning.
Out of competition since last season. Everything below still true, with the caveat that my appreciation for the the decorum and the ethos of debate has diminished. I think you can interpret that how you want. Creativity and clarity are awarded with speaker points.
Lastly the authors of flavor for the rhetoric department are Schmitt, Heidegger, and Hegel. Please do not read a critique of Bildung.
About two dozen total rounds on the 2015-2016 HS topic. Mostly on the non-topic but plenty of K affs with plans and a few policy debates.
I do and prefer K debate for the most part, but I am still interested in hearing policy arguments. I understand and like them, at times.
I vote on T/FW, but I think most teams would be helped by substantive and explicated impact calc vs the aff, articulating a strong T version solves arg, etc. You can't just extend T like you would in front of a judge who ideologically prefers your args.
If you're too fast I might ask you to slow down. You should do you. Within reason, try to offend me.
Most familiar in high theory arguments: afropessimist, feminist, queer theory, and Marxist-derivative literatures. I sort of major in critical theory at Berkeley so sometimes I just happen to know a lot about Ranciere or Edward Said depending on the semester.
Feel free to ask any other questions.