McDonald,+Chris

Judging Philosophy for Policy Debate. I have over 27 years of experience as a policy debater, judge and coach. My default position is still policy making but I am now comfortable allowing debaters to argue a variety of frameworks. Debaters should feel free to employ most any argument or style of debate so long as you are prepared to defend these choices in round and justify why I should stand outside my traditional paradigm.

**Topicality**: I like a good topicality debate, involving a detailed level of argument that goes beyond the normal short tags and no explanation that normally passes for topicality debate. If you plan to win my ballot on topicality you will need to be precise and complete in your argumentation. Both teams must engage the others arguments offensively as well as defensively. Topicality argumentation must go beyond why your position is correct, it must argue why the other team’s position is wrong. **Disadvantages**: Disadvantages should be clearly linked to the plan action advanced by the affirmative team. Internal links are also very important for persuading me that the disadvantage has a high level of probability and weight in the round. Teams should remember to always weigh your disadvantages or turns to the disadvantages as the debate comes into focus during rebuttals. Teams should keep in mind probability, time frame and magnitude of impact when weighing positions in the round. **Counter Plans**: Counter plans are a good offensive tool for negative teams. They must compete with the plan **Case**: Negatives would be wise to actually engage the case presented and not just simply ignore it throughout the round. **Critiques**: I have no problem with topic specific critical literature but teams who employ a “Kritik” or “Critique” should be prepared to fully explain the position from the link level to the impact and/or alternative level. Do not assume that I have any familiarity with the literature base you are presenting. I have degrees in Speech Communications (rhetorical analysis) and English Literature but I don’t have much experience with post-modern philosophy. I would suggest a slower delivery approach with more analytical application if you plan to run critical arguments in front of me. **Delivery Speed**: A faster clip of presentation is not a problem for me in most debate rounds. What is a problem are debaters going faster than they are capable of going without sounding incomprehensible. Please stay within your own delivery rate abilities and we will all enjoy the round of debate. I will give you up to three warning signals that I am not understanding you, after that you take your chances with my ballot. **Negation Theory**: I do not subscribe to negation theory and so negatives would be smart to present a coherent and non-contradictory set of positions in the round. Hopefully this helps you to understand how I judge debate. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask them before the round. Oh yeah, and remember debate is supposed to be fun so have some fun.