Neill,+Christopher+R.


 * Name:** Christopher R. Neill
 * Position:** Instructor
 * Judging Experience:** 9 years
 * E-Mail:** Christopher.r.neill@gmail.com
 * Name of High School:** Petoskey High School
 * Year of High School Graduation:** 2004

1.The Uniqeness debate to me is probably the most important part of every argument that is read in debate. 2. Topicality is always a voting issue in so far as the affirmative does not read critical arguments. 3. The only legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the negative text. Intrinsic and/or severance permutations are not legitimate. I will err negative on these sorts of permutations. Permutations are never advocacies but rather tests of competition. Multiple permutations are legitimate since they are just no link arguments. 4. I err towards Functional Competition. 5. I am good with any speed as long as it is clear. I will say "clear" if I have a problem understanding what you are saying. 6. Number and/or letter your arguments please. 7. I dislike new arguments in the 2NC. 8. I dont believe that every argument needs evidence. Evidence helps and is nice however some analytic arguments are also very useful and will be taken into consideration. 9. I will never vote on an RVI on T... Ever. 10. The best thing you can do to make sure you win the round is to weigh and compare your arguments to their arguments. This means that the rebuttals are probably the most important speeches. This is where I want you to tell me why your advocacy is advantageous or net beneficial to their advocacy. What are the advantages of your advocacy and the disadvantages of their advocacy? Please compare and contrast.
 * A few important notes:**


 * How do I view debate?**

Debate is a respectful game in which competition is acceptable but limited to a professional friendly demeanour I will not accept ignorance and/or discriminatory behaviour or personal attacks. Debate is fun and we should all be friends. You may be aggressive but there is a fine line between being aggressive and mean. You will not lose but I will dock speaker points significantly if you are hostile, rude, etc.
 * Briefly describe your view of proper debate etiquette and how you will evaluate/enforce deviations.**

Name and Date... If their is a question of the integrity of the evidence I will look it over after the round.
 * Evidence citations (what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud?)**

If I am confused.
 * Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence?)**

I guess it would depend on the violation.
 * How do you enforce MIFA violations (e.g. dock speaker points, automatically give a loss, depends on what the debaters say, etc.)?**

I don't care if their is a clarification. I would rather have everyone understand what is going on than to have someone give a wrong answer etc. Your partner may also help gather evidence for the other team etc.
 * Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner)**
 * A). During C/X**

Your partner cannot make arguments for you. They cannot speak for you. I will not flow them. They can tell you to move on, or that you forgot to answer the spending disad, or skip a card etc... They can bring you evidence/files.
 * B). During Speeches**

I am probably considered a Policy Maker. I prefer to hear two competing policies or advocacies. I will vote differently if a different framework is presented. Why? Because I am open to many forms of debate. If you are better at debating critiques go for it. If you want to do a performance, you never know, I might enjoy it.
 * Would you characterize yourself as having a particular paradigm you consistently default to? If so, what is it and what does this mean to you? Would you ever vote in a different paradigm? If so, when and why?**


 * Offense/defense:** I like both. Defense wins championships in football... not debate.


 * Theory:** All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues. I tend to not vote on theory without clear in round abuse. Potential abuse is not a voter.


 * Topicality:** I have already discussed my position on T above in my important notes. #2


 * Specification:** I will not vote on specification unless there is clear in round abuse.


 * Negative Critique/Counterplan Status:** I prefer unconditional strategies. However, I will listen to conditional strategies and I understand the strategic advantage they offer to the negative.


 * Critiques:** I don't know a lot about philosophy. I think I know enough to evaluate the position. Don't assume I know/understand particular authors. Explain your arguments. Critical Affs are cool.


 * Counterplans:** Solves 100% of the Aff.


 * Disadvantages:** Cool.


 * Case Arguments:** Cool.


 * Speaker Points:** I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language). My average is probably a 26.

Four year member of MIFA High School Policy Three year member of NPDA Two year member of NPTE 2003 - Paul Manna Award - Top Speaker - Traverse City Debate League 2003 - Michigan Varsity Debate State Tournament - Sems 2004 - Michigan Varsity Debate State Tournament - Quarters 2004 - Detroit Free Press - John S. Knight Scholarship Competition 2005 - National Parlimentary Debate Association - Trip Octs 2008 - National Parlimentary Debate Association - Octs 2008 - National Parlimentary Tournament of Excellence 2009 - National Parlimentary Debate Association - Trip Octs 2009 - National Parlimentary Tournament of Excellence - Elim Round 6 - Quarters
 * Other Affiliations/Preclusions:**


 * If you have any questions please ask before the round... Good luck!!! :)**