McKenzie,+Rory

Background: HS Competitor at Lindale High School (TX) from 2002-2005 Attended UT-Austin, degree in Communications (not on team), 2005-2009 Received a Master's in communication from Gonzaga, degree in Communications in December, 2014

Coaching History: Assistant coach at Salado High School and Hallsville High School in college. Van High School (2009-2011) Royse City High School (2011-2013) Lindale High School (2013-present)

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX Philosophy Judges are best when they are involved in the rounds as little as possible. I think my role is to gauge what happens instead of dictate what happens. I feel comfortable voting on any area of the flow so long as I understand the way the argument functions in the round. At the end of the round, I ask who won the debate, not who is the better team. It's a happy and appreciated coincidence when those two are the same.

If I got to choose my perfect round it would contain a topical affirmative that uses fiat against a negative team that attempts to create a policy based option that outweighs it either by providing something better or knocking down the affirmative in various ways. That said, I appreciate all debates regardless of their content. I enjoy topicality debates and really appreciate the value of good critical debate as well. I think it's probably not smart for any team to be purely defensive. I also don't think it's smart for teams to think purely in terms of magnitude.

As far as speed goes, that's up to you. I don't really like to intervene in how you choose to debate. It's probably smart to always think slower on procedurals and tag lines. When in doubt, slow down. I'll work really hard to flow more than just tag lines. Help there is appreciated.

I don't typically read a ton of critical literature, so assumptions regarding kritiks are generally bad. Still, as mentioned above, I really enjoy the benefits of critical debate and often learn from them as well.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I actually really enjoy a good topicality debate. Use it when it's necessary.

Theory debates are also enjoyable. It's one of the few times where it's a true debate without external factors contributing.

As far as speaker points, I generally start out at 28.0 as my starting point and increase/decrease based on circumstances in the round. Low speak wins are definitely a thing insofar as you're performance in the round crosses certain lines.

Don't steal prep time. It angers me. And flash evidence appropriately and efficiently. Most likely, I'll be keeping tabs of prep.

I believe that people should debate because it's educational and because it's fun. So let's have both of those things.