12 rounds on the topic—Harvard, Towson State

Hi there. My judging hasn’t changed much. Pertinent issues:

CRITIQUES—I’m fine on critiques, basically. Voted for them a lot. I haven’t judged enough this year to know the intricacies of whatever is being commonly run on this topic, so explain yourself. But if you’re not doing that anyway, then forget it. I really prefer a detailed exploration of the links, and few things annoy me more than a team that just recites the catch phrases of their authors—"They’re using power politics and embracing the metaphysical ontological postmodernist prestructuralist panopticon project as clearly outlined by Habermas, Fouceault, Derrida, Nietzsche, Heiddegger, Lipschutz, Pele, Madonna, Roseanne, Lewinsky, Elian Gonzalez, and Mr. Green Jeans. Obviously, this swamps the case."

THEORY—Pretty open to it—I think that I have leanings towards the negative on counterplan theory, so it’s easier for negatives to win that their dispositional, plan-inclusive, multiple-actor, international fiat socialism counterplan is legitimate than it is for the aff to win that it’s not, but I certainly have voted aff on that stuff plenty of times, so this probably won’t impact your decisions in the round too much. Just so you know. Everything else is largely fine.

YOUR STYLE: Casual is fine, delivery, whatever. Do your thing. Just be clear.

MY STYLE: I rarely mince words, and I’ll tell you flatly if your argument sucks or if your links suck or if your strategy sucks or if your turns suck or if you suck. I’ll especially tell you if your evidence sucks. If you want someone more diplomatic, sorry. I’m a pretty nice guy, really, I just see no reason to pretend.

EVIDENCE: I like it, I’ll read it, and I have high standards, so I’ll make fun of you if you can’t meet those standards.

NEW ARGUMENTS/THE FLOW: I make my decision based as much as possible on the flow, and I’ll be a hardass about new 2AR arguments. Have an overview, but don’t drop the turns completely and assume the overview took care of it.

WHAT IT MEANS THAT I HAVEN’T JUDGED A LOT: Hopefully not too much. It was easier to get into the swing of things at Harvard than I thought, and I’m sure it will be the same here. I will surely not know the details of the North Korea debate as well as you will, so there you go. This should be noted and kept in mind, but it shouldn’t dictate anything different for you.

BAD ARGUMENTS: These include, but are not limited to:

1. "Perm: Do the Plan and Rethink." I have voted on this, depressingly.
2. "The 1AR is hard, so new arguments in the 2AR should be OK." No.
3. "Our impact is so big that it outweighs topicality." Please shut your piehole.
4. "My name is Mike Eber. I am cool." I don’t think so.

ONE FINAL ITEM: I have found that I am increasingly annoyed by those who take bathroom breaks prior to speaking. You’re grown-ups now, so learn to hold it, or use prep time.