Michael Hellie ParadigmLast changed 10/7 1:27P CDT
I debated for the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools from 2014-2018. For what it's worth, my senior year, I cleared at every major national tournament I attended and earned 7 bids to the TOC.
I would like to be on the email chain: email@example.com
Debate is fundamentally a communicative activity. If, by the end of the debate, you have convinced me to vote on an argument, I will certainly do so, regardless of how I personally feel about the argument.
I don't believe that it is my prerogative as a judge to determine or influence the content of the debate. As such, I will do my best to fairly evaluate any and all arguments based solely on the flow of that particular round.
That said, please don't say anything offensive.
Thoughts on form:
The strongest final rebuttals will begin by writing my ballot and instructing me how to resolve the central question of the debate.
While I would certainly say that I am a tech over truth judge, it will be far easier for you to win my ballot with strong meta-level framing of the round than by assuming that I'll know that the block's concession of 2AC #12 is game over.
Thoughts on content:
I'll mostly discuss my thoughts on the Kritik because that's what I think most people are interested in:
If you believe in characterizing debaters by their argument preference, I would fall decidedly in the "k debater" camp. I spent my last two summers in the Michigan 7-week k lab and have not read a "policy aff" since my novice year.
However, this does not mean that I am any more likely to vote for kritiks or kritik affs. If anything, I will probably have a higher standard for these arguments to be executed properly.