McConway,+Cameron


 * Updated for St. Marks 2017 **

I debated for Cy-Fair HS in Houston, Texas for three years, qualifying for TFA, TOC, and NSDA nationals. I now attend the University of Texas at Austin. I have taught at TDC, VBI, and NSD and coach McNeil HS in Austin, Texas.

I would rather see debaters do what they are good at than watch them read arguments I enjoyed badly. I have found that the arguments I liked as a debater are not always the ones I enjoy judging. That said, As long as your arguments are not offensive, I am willing to listen to anything. I will yell clear, slow, or loud and I do not mind if you sit or stand. I default comparative worlds over truth testing but feel free to contest that.
 * General: **

Speed is fine. **SLOW DOWN** for tags/advocacies/interps. I will say clear/slow but if you don't ever adjust I'll stop flowing. I probably can't flow as fast as you think I can, especially since I don't judge too often.
 * Speed: **

I liked util debate and enjoy watching good larpers. Absent impact comparisons I find shorter link chains with small impacts more persuasive and just more generally interesting. You’re welcome to read your extinction impacts but I will probably be amused and have a lower threshold for responses the longer and more intricate the link chain. Good util debates should include lots of impact calc and evidence comparison.
 * LARP: **

I was known as a K debater, but **please don’t read random backfile Ks instead of your normal strategy because you think it will make me happy**. I would rather see a good util debate or even framework than a bad K debate. I’m familiar with some postmodern philosophy and liked these arguments in high school but will hold you to the same threshold for explaining your alternative and link story whether I have read your authors or not. Do not assume I have background knowledge on your NC, and I think K debaters who do a combination of line by line and overviews are particularly persuasive. I’m willing to listen to critical affirmatives but am also willing to listen to framework and cede the political style arguments against non-T affs. I also will default to evaluating the K the way it is articulated in round, not based on how I understand the literature. I do think incorrect interpretations of literature are fair game for lower speaks though.
 * Ks: **

**SLOW DOWN and make warranted arguments.** Contrary to popular belief I enjoy good theory and T debates, but I think debaters have a tendency to blaze through unwarranted analytics and it makes these rounds difficult to evaluate.
 * T/Theory: **

-I default drop the argument and competing interpretations but if I have to default to anything on theory I will be sad.

-I am willing to listen to reasonability claims and think reasonability is an underutilized strategy.

-I am more persuaded by RVI claims under competing interpretations.

-I think that competing interpretations can in fact justify multiple conflicting counter interpretations. Please blame Akhil Jalan and Christian Tarsney.

This was not my forte in high school. I’m willing to listen to it but I may not get the nuances and implications of each specific analytic in the framework if you blaze through them at top speed, so you should slow down (to at least a 7 or 8) and give good overviews because I have likely not read your literature. Make framework interactions really clear for me so that I don’t feel lost. That precaution aside, I've found I really like judging good framework debates.
 * Phil/Framework: **

This was never a huge thing where I debated, and I don’t love hearing affs that are basically a wall of spikes. I think burden affs can be interesting and strategic, and I am willing to listen to skepticism to contest frameworks or justify frameworks because it is the grounding of most normative ethics and important in philosophy, but please do not read skep to answer oppression arguments. As a general rule this is not my favorite kind of debate because it is usually done at top speed through very quick analytics, so remember I don’t have your speech doc. I’m not going to be thrilled if there are arguments that change function or trigger something in the next speech either; I think the function of arguments should be clear from the time they are read (not saying you cannot use something to take out another argument that it doesn’t appear to interact with- this is about contingent standards).
 * Tricks: **


 * Things That I Will Drop You For: **

-Sexism, racism, homophobia, and any general offensive comments or behavior

-Impact turning oppression arguments (I will never vote on oppression good.)

-Doing anything that makes your opponent, myself, or anyone in the room feel unsafe


 * Things I Appreciate: **

-Trigger warnings

-Being kind (sass is funny, rudeness is not.)

-Being a good sport

I think speaks are very arbitrary as well as inflated. That said, I will likely average around a 28 and go up or down from there. If I give below a 26 then there was something egregious done in round and it will likely be on the ballot or I will tell you after the round. If you are especially offensive, I don’t feel bad telling your coaching staff. Speaks will be adjusted relative to tournament difficulty and competition. I will assign speaks based on strategy and overall performance. I will not dock speaks for speech impediments or similar situations, and if a debater brings it to my attention that this applies to them I will be more than willing to call clear more and evaluate strategy over clarity.
 * Speaks: **

If you have questions you can email me at c.mcconway@utexas.edu or ask me before the round.