MacLeod,+Cam

Currently, I'm unaffiliated, though I have previous associations with Wooster High School in Ohio (coach) and Portage Central High School in Michigan (competitor). A little quick background - I'm a political philosophy wonk, and graduated with honors in both philosophy and political science from a decent school, so I'm not a hack when it comes to that stuff. I've judged all over for a number of years now, at every thing from districts to states to nationals, NCFL and NFL alike. Questions? Ask. This is by no means a catch all, but instead a general guide.


 * The basics**
 * Speed is fine, as long as you're clear. I want to hear the merits of the card, not how well you can mumble.
 * Tag cross and prompting are fine, assuming it doesn't get excessive.
 * I'll vote on just about anything, given that you've dedicated the time to it in round. T, CP, DA, K, Solvency, etc - it's all fair game as long as you know what you're talking about.
 * I won't fill in the flow for you. Impact analysis from you is a good thing - always.
 * Purely performance affs and I do not get along, except on rare occasions. Debate's about advocacy, not solely about how you're a better pirate.
 * i <3 clash.

__Topicality__ for me is an issue of whether (a) the definition is reasonable as presented by the Negative and (b) whether you meet that definition //prima facie//. I tend to evaluate T on the same level as I would evaluate vagueness/procedural/theory arguments - the Aff has an obligation to work within the construct of the resolution, sorry folks. Regarding vagueness/procedural/theory arguments, I'm fine with them, and usually understand them. The big thing here is to impact it all out - tell me **//why//** plan vagueness or FX T are bad, or why PICs destroy debate. This is part of the nuance - create your case and back it up. Thus, things like standards debates will well analyzed implications will make these kinds of theory/procedural arguments all the more compelling.
 * The specifics**

__Disadvantages__/__Counterplans__ are probably a great bet for me. Well argued and impacted disads are well worth the time - hint, hint. Counterplans need to have demonstrated competitiveness, and so if introduced, the presumption game plays both ways. Without a reasonably demonstrated net benefit, I’m going to flow most CPs out of the equation – just reading the cards once doesn’t get you the win. Disadvantages need to demonstrate the unique causal scenario which triggers the impact. Make strong link arguments.

__Kritiks__ are fine to run with me... with the caveat being that you need to understand them. I think you should be able to explain these things in the simplest detail, as well as explaining the policy implications of the alternative more than "reject the affirmative". There should be, given that you have more than a generic link, a specific function vis a vis case that allows you to make it preferable on both a policy and philosophical level. If I'm the only judge in the room, I'll be prone to look at the philosophy, but in most of the out-rounds I've judged, very rarely will you get two of me on a panel. Get into practice painting a complete picture of the round, and especially of the role the K plays. Phrases like "even if you don't buy //x//, then..." should become part of your vocab here. Give me reasons - don't expect me to do the work for you.

__Case__ is not something that I generally have a preference on, given the amount of teams that blow off case advantages and inherency in favor of solvency attacks. I’m all for case-specific clash – in fact, I generally encourage it. Inherency indictments are simple, easy ways to vote. If it’s argued in the round, regardless of how unreasonable you may think the argument is, you need to answer it. Inherency I’ll generally pref to the affirmative. Solvency, however, is usually another question entirely. I generally can admit readily that plan may be very well-intentioned; I mean, who doesn’t admit that AIDS is bad, and solving AIDS is good, right? But the question of solvency is two-fold for me: (1)how well do you accurate solve for the advantages you claim and (2) how coherent is that solvency mechanism? Essentially, the big thing for me with solvency is whether you can solve the harms, and whether your solvency mechanism is actively engaging the underlying problems of the status quo. Without both of these options (on-case and off-case support for solvency and thus, a reason to prefer case), I presume the negative is right on and that as well intentioned as the affirmative may be, there is not ground for preferring the aff case. Age old presumption... dun dun dunnnnnnn.

More questions? Ask me before the round – the burden on you is to ask the right questions.