Skeean,+Omega

My name is Omega Skeean. I debated for three years at Dexter High School and am in my third year debating at the University of Michigan. I don't think there's too much to say about me as a judge. I'm a college debater, so you'll find I have very few argument preclusions. I'd prefer you run arguments that you're comfortable with and that you enjoy running.

However, because you'll inevitably ask anyway...


 * General Stuff:**
 * Speed**: is fine. You will find convincing me it's not is an uphill battle. However, you should be clear. If I can't understand you I will probably make a confused face, or ask you to be clearer if it gets especially bad. At some point I'll give up and cede the interpretation of your arguments to your opponents. This is very bad for you (i.e. if the 2nr says your 1ar dropped something and I couldn't understand half the 1ar I'll probably believe them even if you didn't).
 * Attitude**: I hate the phrase 'be nice' when it comes to debate. Being assertive is sometimes necessary to get your point across, and that can come into conflict with being nice. However, don't be a huge jerk. I can tell the difference between debate round swagger and an attitude problem. If I mention your demeanor after the round, you can assume it affected your speaker points.
 * Ethics**: I hate hate hate deciding rounds on ethics. Please don't clip cards or fabricate evidence in front of me! If you are accusing another team of being unethical, make sure you have proof--it's not that I think you're lying, but I'm extremely uncomfortable penalizing anyone without evidence of misconduct. I don't really have a default penalty for ethics issues; I would prefer to see the penalty debated out in front of me.


 * Specifics:**
 * DAs**: I don't know what to say here. Specific links are good, make sure you have an impact external to the aff... If you are aff, don't forget to make link non-unique arguments--there are probably a lot of other things happening that would trigger the link. I have no problem with politics DAs but I think they tend to be very tenuously constructed, so I'm probably more likely to give thumpers a lot of weight than most. If you're running a politics DA make sure you've carefully thought out what your interpretation of fiat is; I hear a lot of teams carelessly making contradictory interpretations of fiat across flows.
 * Counterplans**: Specificity is good, specific solvency advocates are great. Consult and condition counterplans rub me the wrong way but I'll still need to see a substantial debate on why they are bad for debate before I'll reject them. If you're aff make sure to make a lot of creative perms; I'm more likely to buy the argument that an abusive counterplan is grounds for a certain perm than I am to vote a team down for reading a counterplan in the first place.
 * Kritiks:** are fine. I think the distinction between 'critical' and 'policy' debate is somewhat artificial and constructed. Most of the best debaters are flexible and can go for either. One consideration, though, is that although I have a more extensive background in critical theory than many in-state judges, you should not assume I am familiar with your particular author or argument of choice. You should make sure to explain the scenario in detail. Also make sure to win your framing arguments--I can't count how many times I've voted a K team down on 'the aff is a DA to the alternative resulting in extinction.'
 * Topicality:** I like good T debates. Getting me to vote on potential abuse is a tough sell, so try to manipulate the aff into abusing you. "They spiked out of this disad" is a lot more convincing to me than "they could have spiked out of this if we had run it."
 * Case:** love me a good case debate. As a 2a, a case dump is a lot scarier to me than a jillion off case arguments. Affs, don't forget to always always always make the argument that DA or K impacts are inevitable without your aff, or that your aff would solve them.

-Debate is fun! If you aren't having fun, you're doing it wrong. Try not to take what basically amounts to a game so seriously. -Lots of impact comparison and interaction is good, can win you rounds and net you much higher speaks -I think of debate as an exercise in persuasion above all else. That means I will defer to explanation over good cards, and I generally don't read evidence unless its content is called into question or the round was so messy that I couldn't decide without looking at cards.
 * Parting words:**