For Debate rounds (PF, Congress & LD): I want to understand your speaking--don't spread--it doesn't make me think you know what you are doing, only that you can talk fast like on the TV advertisements. Also, please don't give me off-time road maps; it wastes time in a round--just have a clearly structured rebuttal and counterclaim and I'll figure it out. Don't be rude in any sort of questioning round. If you ask a question, I expect to hear an answer. Intimidation of any sort will not be rewarded, neither will ad hominem attacks. I do think competitors too often overlook the bias of sources. I'm not impressed when you challenge a source--unless you really know that the opponent has misrepresented it--but I am really dismayed that no one addresses the bias of sources as a potential to discredit a line of argument based on such evidence. And, lastly, I know you want me to vote for you; it's okay to tell me voting issues, but if you have 10 seconds left in your speech, give me info, don't ask for my vote. It sounds so polite, but evidence or reasons matter.

Hello,

First and foremost, I believe that Public Forum is a competitive speaking event. So while persuasive argumentation skills are essential to the event, clear and concise speaking are also highly valued. I can flow and understand quick speakers, but there is a limit to what the human ear and brain can comprehend so be wary of spreading. I also appreciate when a team provides clear signposts (i.e. when responding to an opponent's argument, clearly state which argument you are attempting to refute). Two quick side notes: 1) I don't flow the names associated with your evidence so don't just say the "John Smith" evidence (make sure you extend the warrants) and 2) I DO NOT need an off time road map unless you are attempting something out of the ordinary.

Frameworks/Weighing

If teams do not provide a clear framework or any weighing mechanisms, I will judge under a simple cost/benefit analysis. If a team provides a weighing mechanism and it goes unresponded to in the round, I will assume their opponents agree with it. This doesn't mean the team that provided it will automatically win the round as their opponent's arguments / evidence could better fit the criteria.

Winning the Round

I prefer quality over quantity. If your case has 4 to 6 contentions, I highly doubt you give enough analysis to support each of those (and I don't value teams that throw in contentions just to distract opponents or waste time in the round). If you want to win my vote: your case should contain well-research and supported contentions with analysis of HOW your evidence supports your claims; your rebuttal should attempt to refute ALL of your opponent's contentions (if you don't respond to an argument, I'll assume you agree); you should provide clear links to impacts (I am not impressed by long, incoherent link chains); and you should provide a weighing mechanism to tell me WHY you believe you've won the round.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

I competed in NPDA/NPTE for three years in college, in addition to high school IEs and Congress. I don't mind conversational or technical debate; both have benefits and limitations.

If I am judging you in IPDA: you should be reasonably topical; negatives have the right to redefine if you don't meet that threshold. Disclosure is fine, but it's not required- it's generally not a voting issue for me. Impacts and framing matter. If it's a policy resolution, I grant the aff fiat.

If I am judging you in LD: Speed is fine. I'll let you know if you need to slow down, so you don't need to try to guess. I'm fine with kritiks, theory, non-topical affs, etc. Just make sure you're winning the flow and framing the round effectively.

Overall: Be kind, try new things, learn from each round. Debate is about education.

Experience

Current Director for DFW S&D. I did LD/Policy/PF for HS (primarily Policy and LD) and so have experience with either format. I also competed for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit with some policy here and there as well in college. Short of it is that I have experience with most argument styles and formats so you should be fine with whatever you want to run. I generally judge LD if I judge at all, so I've written this paradigm for that format. If there are any questions due to me not judging you in LD, feel free to email/ask about those prior to the round.

In addition, prior to anything about debate argument preferences, if at any time a competitor feels uncomfortable/unsafe, you are free to contact me via email or other means if you would prefer it to not be voiced in round.

My email for chains is ianmmikkelsen@gmail.com , please include me.

Important Notes

I'm using this section to note a few things that are probably important in terms of general style, more than specifics of arguments.

Speed - I'm generally fine with speed so long as it works for everyone in the round. I should note that between debate for however long and my time in various graduate programs, I now suffer from fairly consistent hand and wrist pain that sometimes flares up to the point that I can't type all of the arguments given at a top speed. To accommodate this, I will generally listen along while reading the speech document, and copy it over to my flow as it happens. If you are adding analysis or giving the rebuttal, I would recommend slowing down to a quick, but not spread, speed if you would like me to make sure to get all of the analysis you give. I have yet to be in a round where analytics are both understandable and not capable of being typed, but if for some reason that occurs, I will say clear/slow.

This all being said, as a personal preference, I do enjoy a single comprehensive strategy that is carried throughout the round more than a spread of options that then get whittled down through conditionality/kicking theory. Not to say that I'll be knocking speaks or actually upset/annoyed by the latter, just a personal preference.

Speech documents - Related to speed, but somewhat different, I have noticed that there are times where individuals will send a speech document that contains most of their analytics, but fails to include a few independent voters. If you maintain a top spreading pace, and simply blaze through a sudden independent voter analytic that was not included in record time, I'm unlikely to grant it to you. If you slow down for its delivery and note that it is not in the document, I will flow it and include it at that time. I generally dislike being forced into these types of judgement calls, but the convergence of tech issues, difficult in having consistent audio quality, as well as just accessibility concerns, means I'm not sure how to adjudicate a round where by the time a concession of these arguments happens it's too late to identify whether it was just missed or something else impacting the round.

Theory/T

I'm generally fine with whatever theory position so long as it is relatively well developed. I generally view it as whether it is a theoretically good as a precedent and not as an instance of this specific round (i.e., you can win potential abuse arguments), but only if the argument is developed to claim that there is a fundamental shift in strategy due to just the presence of arguments (didn't run x really good argument because y theoretically objectionable choice removes it as a viable option). That being said, that is typically only on more stock theory. The more specific the theory is to a condition that only happens under either the specific resolution or within a specific round the more I need the theory to focus on in-round issues.

Kritiks

I'm good with most critical arguments and theorists. I ran too much of Agamben, Cap, Lacan, and other language k's. Identity based frameworks are more what I've gotten into with my actual studies and research post-undergraduate, so I'm familiar with the authors (as well as having had researched them for debate), but generally only ran that literature when the topic for the round made it more related to the political as opposed to the ontological claims of the literature. I will listen to the ontological criticisms that come from it, but generally found that my attempts to contribute to that aspect was less helpful than preferred due to a lack of experience and understanding personally.

Tricks

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what a "trick" is in debate. From what I can tell, it is either a fairly specific and complex bit of theory/logic that is predicated entirely in the game of debate (willing to listen to that) or the term that individuals use for one liners that come without the explanation of what precisely they mean or how to evaluate it. Due to the time differentials of speeches, spikes in the AC which are meant for expansion in the 1AR make sense to me, but if the argument is underdeveloped upfront my general reaction is to either 1) disregard expansion if it isn't explained until the final speeches and doesn't seem immediately obvious from what was said or 2) to give the expansion but also allow an expansion of arguments against it. I've voted based on not understanding or following arguments before and am generally willing to do so, but would vastly prefer being able to have the full argument as that generally makes everyone happier.

Philosophy

I've read most of the "stock" philosophers from traditional LD, gotten deep into Foucault, Hegel, Marx, and other European authors, and have used my time after debate to get into identity frameworks that I didn't focus on as much as I should've. I've noticed that some philosophy aff/neg will sometimes run entire cases that take works from well before the concepts of the resolution were even discussed and attempt to apply them to the recent developments. My general sentiment on this is that it can be done, but that it is probably preferable to spend the time of research on finding what philosophical arguments are based in the literature, and then find the foundational texts afterwards. It is difficult for me to accept an application of books written in the early 20th century (and sometimes prior) to the development of recent technologies, especially when the literature applying those theories to these developments is generally fairly rich itself, over someone who has more topic specific discussions of the literature. But, I can be persuaded otherwise on this.