McGuire,+Jonathan

Jonathan McGuire Last Updated: 7.2.2014 Experience: 4 Years Policy in HS, 4 Years Parli at the University of Nevada.

Prep Version: The affirmative should try to be topical and defend the resolution Unless told otherwise, my default calculus is probability then timeframe then magnitude. Organization will help you immensely in winning my ballot I have a reasonably high threshold for voting on Topicality Defense is an underutilized and a particularly persuasive tool for me To get my ballot running the Kritik it needs to be well developed and explained In a majority of instances theory is debatable If you have questions please feel free to ask before the round.

Pref Version: General: This is your debate round. I will adjudicate what you want to do to the best of my ability. My judging philosophy is less progressive than you might expect.

Framework/ Impact Framing: If you would like to propose an alternative framework than Net-benefits, please justify and prepare a defense of your chosen framework. Framework is a lens through which to view the debate, not a voting issue in itself. Unless told otherwise, my default calculus is probability then timeframe then magnitude. Scenarios need an explicit impact- global warming and economic collapse are not impacts

Affirmative: The affirmative has the burden of defending the resolution as a good idea If you want to read a critical position explain how it falls under the topic I enjoy seeing creative interpretations of words used to access unpredictably topical cases, but you must be able to defend your case and your interpretation Project affirmatives generally do not meet the above criteria, and as such I would prefer not to see them.

Case Debate: Please do more of this! The debate does not have to restart during the LOC/MG. LOC- No PMC is bulletproof, find the holes However, Disadvantages do not belong on case, this tactic frustrates me MG- Your PMC often has built in offense against their positions, please try to utilize it

Procedurals/ T: I have a reasonably high threshold on T and a very high threshold on RVIs. Your interpretation must not shift, and it ought be repeated at least once. I think specification arguments are difficult to win the round on, but useful to grant access to ground you want. I’m very open to the Competing Interps vs. Reasonability discussion, but both ought be defined. If you are going for T, there should not be any drops. You need to explicate your voters, blipping the words fairness and education is not an argument.

Kritiks: A Critical Perspective or Thesis that clearly summarizes your position will help me immensely I should not need to have a pre-round understanding of your position for you to run it Links should stem from resolution or plan text Explain the way your solvency resolves the impacts you read Alternative frameworks are beneficial when going for the kritik

Counter Plans: Love them, use them. Too often debaters run non mutually exclusive alternatives- grapple with the perm discussion Uniqueness CPs are an underutilized tool Disads to the CP should a. be on a separate sheet and b. should be read more often

Permutations: Permutations should probably have a text or be very clearly explicated A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan. Permutations are tests of competition not advocacies

Theory: If going for theory is your primary strategy, I am probably not the judge for you. I will vote on theory, but rarely are these discussions as entertaining as a discussion of the topic. A good theory position will: have an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voters. On most issues I will do my best to remain unbiased however you should know my biases: Multiple Conditional Advocacies: I am very easily persuaded that these are bad. Performative Contradictions: Should be avoided but are rarely a voting issue

DAs: Uniqueness controls the direction of the link. Case specific well researched disadvantages are the best. They should have case specific links if at all possible. Politics: I have a pretty high threshold on Politics. I have seen one or two Politics Scenarios in my entire life that I thought actually had a risk of happening.

Rebuttals: You probably aren’t winning every argument, be realistic and acknowledge this

Miscellaneous: Advocacies: all should be repeated at least once, I would prefer a copy be written Independent Voting Issues (IVIs) require substantial explanation for me to vote on them Defense: is an underutilized tool, offense on every sheet is NOT necessary to win my ballot The block should not be split in Parliamentary Debate Speed: clarity over quantity, you can go as fast as you like but I can’t flow you if you aren’t clear. Please slow down on your taglines. Please avoid using speed as a method of exclusion. Speaker Points: 25-29.5, outside of this and something pretty unusual has occurred.

Points of: Information: You should allow a minimum of one question per speech, becoming flippant at additional questions is not productive. Order: Please call them- they exist for a reason. I’ve been told I have a low threshold for new arguments. I will try to rule on these when possible/ relevant. Personal Privilege: I’ve never witnessed one of these, but use your discretion.

Trichot: I find policy to be the easiest form of debate to evaluate, then Value, then Fact. While I prefer to see a policy debate, if you would prefer to argue differently I will do my best.

If you have any questions or need clarifications please email jamcguire5@gmail.com and I will try to respond in a timely manner.

Other Format Mentions: Policy: Debaters tend to have an over-reliance on their cards and their blocks. If you can make a well-reasoned argument, even if it doesn’t have cards, I find these to be incredibly persuasive. LD: I evaluate the value- value-criterion debate first. If this is not clear I use the contentions as a tie breaker. Debaters often underutilize their case in answering their opponents arguments. PFD: Too often these debates become a tally mark contest of contentions. Explain how your contentions interact and poke holes in the logic other team’s case and it will get you far.