McCleary,+Patrick

Patrick McCleary

I debated for 4 years at Loyola Blakefield in HS, where I made the TOC my senior year. I debated for 3 years at the University of Mary Washington, where I went to the NDT all 3 years, was in elims in 2012 and 2013, and was the 5th team in the Copeland race in 2013. I’m currently an assistant coach at Loyola and George Mason.

I’ve got little experience on the HS topic, so I would encourage you not to assume I know what your acronym stands for or what relevant political actors that your plan affects in other countries. I’m generally pretty good at non-verbal cues if I don’t know what you’re saying. Just keep an eye out.

I’m not here to tell you what debate is supposed to be about or what arguments are best, so I won’t judge in a fashion that assumes I know the answers to those questions. Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. Treat the following as proclivities that break ties. In other words, if two sides debate an argument as perfectly (or as poorly?) as humanly possible, this is how I would probably err in a given situation.

__Top level stuff:__ I enjoy fast, clash-heavy, policy debate. I think there are benefits to all three of those descriptors, though I am open to well-argued critiques of “policy” – see below. That necessitates certain things about the way I judge: - I like to flow. I will flow that tell me not to flow in order to determine if not flowing is a better model for debate, but I need to flow the arguments to make that determination in the first place - Line by line is important in my decision-making - Clarity is crucial. A lot of “bad judging decisions” are the result of miscommunications between judges and debaters - An argument is a claim and a warrant. Phrases such as “fiat solves the link” or “infinite regression” are not arguments. Teams are only responsible for responding to arguments. I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29 is a speaker award, 28.5 is good, 28 is average, 27.5 is below average, 27 needs work. Any lower and you are either in the wrong division or did something offensive.

Finally, I’m pretty lenient about paperless prep, having taken a fair share in my day. Try not to take too much if possible.

__Topicality__ I think it’s one of the most underutilized tools in the neg arsenal. I also think 1ARs don’t give it enough credibility. It’s a voter and never a reverse voter. Limits determines everything. I view topicality as a battle between functional limits for the aff and predictable limits for the neg. That’s also what determines whether or not an aff is “reasonable” or not.

ASpec is a nonstarter unless you ask in c/x, and even then it’s probably an uphill battle. As a 2A, I respect the aff’s choice to refuse to give PIC ground in 1AC c/x, but affs need to understand that a mishandled vagueness argument can lead to an outcome they don’t want. Effects and extra T might be reasons to reject the nontopical parts of the aff, but negative teams would be wise to point out the ways that the aff fails to solve/function logically without those parts.

__DA__ Obviously I’m most familiar with these (see: college I attended). Here’s a laundry list of advice and thoughts. I think DAs can have a tendency to be a series of strung together cards – it’s important to articulate a story to the DA that makes sense. I think there can be zero risk of a link, especially if your DA is one of the ones described above. Link precedes uniqueness. Start impact calculus as early as possible. Cards should never be tagged “more ev.” Just respond to arguments instead of saying “uniqueness (or link) debate – group it.” In many instances (especially picking apart opponents’ cards), smart analytics are just as effective, if not more so than cards.

__CP__ The absolute best thing the last rebuttals can do in a CP debate (and pretty much all debates) is to assume that the other side is going to win some part of their argument. That means you need to quantify the risk of the solvency deficit versus the risk of the DA/case. Affs should be smart and creative with permutations and explanations of the perm. Negs should lock down what the perm is early to avoid aff shiftiness.

If nobody says anything about it, I’m willing to kick the CP for the neg because of implicit assumptions of conditionality. But I could definitely be persuaded that presumption flips aff/the neg should get one world in the 2NR.

__Theory__ Again – these are inclinations. Nothing is set in stone and I can be persuaded either way.

Conditionality – probably fine within reason. I personally believe more strongly in the justifications for 1 CP, 1 K as opposed to 2 CPs or 2 Ks. Dispositionality – I would be surprised if I voted on it CPs that do the whole aff (consult, condition, etc) – probably not reasons to reject the team. Perm do the CP is probably a winner though. PICs – probably good, especially the more aff specific and germane they are.

As a rule of thumb, smarter arguments like “conditional PICs bad” are generally better than “conditionality bad” and “PICs bad.”

__K__ I may be more familiar with these than my UMW background might suggest. Persuasive aff arguments revolve around attacking the alternative, answering root cause, and winning the case. The best neg arguments are the classic tricks – root cause, value to life, serial policy failure, etc.

I’m much more familiar with the standard –ism Ks: capitalism, feminism, imperialism, etc., but I’m willing to hear whatever K you’ve got in the tub. But if you think there’s a chance that your K might be over my head, please label and describe it by the argument as opposed to just the random author.

__Planless Affs/Framework Debates__ I’m very open to hearing types of affirmatives that criticize norms/structures/discrimination within the community. Some things about me that I think can influence my decisions in a “clash of civilizations” style debate: - I believe that evaluating consequences matters #Isaac02 - The closer the aff is to the topic, the less uphill the framework battle is for the aff - Nebulous terms like fairness, education, and ontology are not impacts in and of themselves - I am more likely to reward teams who do line by line analysis than those who operate more holistically. This is both because I believe in the value of direct clash (see above) and because it seems to disincentivize that sort of clash if I reward embedding clash when the other team is doing the work to create clash directly. This is obviously the most controversial area when it comes to preffing judges. So if you read a planless aff or are facing one with me in the back and you have questions, please ask them.

__Case__ Almost every single 2NR should address the case. Case debates are awesome. Please do them and do them well.