McNamara,+Kevin


 * Kevin L. McNamara's Judging Philosophy**

My judging experience: I am a practicing attorney (litigation) for over 18 years and have judged LD, PF and Congress since 2004 (primarily LD). I have judged at national level competitions such as NFL/NSDA nats, CFL nats, Harvard, Blue Key, Crestian Tradition and others.


 * Lincoln-Douglas Debate:**

I prefer a more traditional debate, but I am not against novel arguments. If you run a K, there must be some link to the resolution. I am not a fan of ridiculous, off topic arguments used as an ambush tactic; I would likely not give weight to such argument unless extremely compelling. Theory only to check abuse please.

I do not believe that debate is always won on a "gotcha". Dropped arguments will generally hurt your ballot, but this does not mean that you have to address every contention or observation of your opponent either. A framework debate can win the round if you present offense; offense is necessary. Keep in mind that a contention is an assertion supported by some evidence. Without evidence of some kind, it remains an assertion and will not be given weight.

Generally, I expect to hear a core value and a criterion by which that value should be upheld, protected, respected, advanced, or achieved. Your value criterion must be supportive of your value premise. If you are arguing something creative (that is, the relationship is not clear or requires mental gymnastics), you will be advised to be able to explain the relationship and how it supports your argument/conclusions. In addition, if an opponent refutes/disputes a contention, and you fail to address this on your rebuttal, it will be considered an abandoned argument. I am looking for a well-reasoned, logical arguments, supported by evidence. Empirical evidence and statistics may be helpful and illustrative on certain topics, but are not necessary for a value debate.

I can tolerate some speed in argumentation, but am not a fan of ultra high speed spread (yes, I know they teach this at camp). Keep in mind that judges are flowing both sides of the case and trying to analyze and compare arguments on the fly. I want your argument to make it onto my flow. It is also axiomatic that persuasiveness and presentation suffers, as speed increases. I have found many speakers tend to mispronounce words/names and/or slur their speech in favor of speed. This is not a good idea. So, at least slow down for cites, tag lines or quotes.

Cross ex is under utilized by most debaters. I have seen opposing arguments completely destroyed on cross. Use your cross ex to full advantage! Voters are helpful for summarization. Debate jargon is fine. I am focused on argument, not formalities in the round. Debaters may sit or stand as they please.

Please spend your time debating, not complaining. Give me your voters, but beware of making false statements about what was addressed. A sleazy rebuttal will hurt your ballot. I will be flowing the debate and I will evaluate my flow to determine the winner of the round. I may call for cards if the issue is a key argument or their was dispute about the import/implication of the card.

Pet peeves: 1. Using phrases/words that you do not understand and cannot explain. This says it is not your argument and you don’t know your own case; 2. Poor pronunciation of names/countries/etc.; 3. Circular reasoning (even if your opponent does not catch it, it may not win); 4. Extinction arguments. Since there is no prior extinction event for humanity, good luck with this. I will vote it if you run it and actually present a solid link chain, but since it is so easy to defeat, it is a likely loser. 5. Representation of a card which was false. If I call for cards, and you have misrepresented, you will be doomed. Spin is okay, false statements are not.


 * Public Forum Debate:**

I expect a well developed case with solid evidence. Since PF topics tend to be currently relevant in the news or global affairs, your evidence should be fairly current too. This is particularly true when an issue remains in flux (such as at Nats a few years ago during the Russian invasion of Crimea). Know your evidence and position and be able to defend on crossfire. I expect second speaker to do a solid job of refutation while advancing their case. Dropped arguments can be fatal in PF. During crossfire, remain respectful. I do not reward bullies. You can make your case without being a jerk. Speed in speaking is okay to a point. Please remember that judges are usually trying to flow the case and analyze the argument at the same time. I am looking for a cohesive presentation of argumentation, logic and evidence. The team that does this better will win the round. On rebuttal speeches, signposting your rebuttal evidence or turns is helpful. Voters during final focus is good as well. Bad ideas: misrepresenting evidence; not having evidence (in original form) when citing in round; poor citation sources (e.g. Wikipedia); citing to a newspaper or magazine article that is discussing a study (why not cite the study directly?)

Please pronounce words and names correctly; it really helps us judges.

I offer a quote directly from the NSDA (formerly NFL) judging guidelines, //“The debater has the obligation to be clear, audible, and comprehensible, and to speak persuasively to the listeners. Additionally, debaters should strive for fluency, expressiveness, effective word choice, and eloquence.”//