McGrath,+Larry

Howdy.

I have been judging debate for the past six years now - during my time as an undergraduate, and more recently as a graduate student. I debated for four years at Nevada Union high school on the national circuit, after which I briefly debated for UC Berkeley. I have taught at a number of summer institutes, though now prefer to travel during my time outside of class. I have previously coached at Monte Vista and Palo Alto high schools; I principally instructed the Presentation high school team in San Jose, California.

I encourage you to ask me any questions before (and after) the round to better discern my paradigm. I believe, however, that the establishment of a judging paradigm is a central task of the round. By that I mean it is a debater’s job to instruct me how I should vote. This is generally done by establishing a mechanism of evaluation (whether it is a standard or otherwise) and a hierarchy of arguments. But, here are some things that get me excited about rounds:

- I believe that LD debate is forum for students to critically engage issues that bear directly upon our world. By critical engagement, I mean that debaters have the opportunity to re-envision problematics through the debate round: to frame the world otherwise. I find the traditional LD canon of liberal-Enlightenment thought to be neither interesting, particularly significant, nor provocative. If you win the argument, of course I will vote off it. But I am more interested in debaters who utilize the forum of LD to re-construct issues: to stand resolved on a topic demands more than accepting its terms as given. - I like positions: as if the constructive is a solid (and scrumptious) block of tofu - consistent throughout. I like to hear constructives that pull their evidence from the same block of shelves at the library. - Nice people score much better in the speaker points column than angry people. I think victories (even smack-downs) are much hotter when performed by calm and collected debaters. I also love wit. Debaters who are funny will generally score higher speaker points. But wit is not facetious, nor is it sarcasm. It does not exploit an opponent for humor, but rather extracts opportunities for humor from the moment. I will never incorporate these aesthetic dimensions of the round into my decision calculus, but I feel free to use them as the basis for speaker point assignments. - “Theory” debates are generally silly. This is not because I find them to inherently lack substance. Rather, I am generally not concerned with the notions to which they appeal, particularly the definition of terms in the resolution that a dictionary may deem evident before the round. I think "theory" debates unfortunately tend to occupy a space on my flow that transcends the rest. It is imperative for a debater to demonstrate how whatever "meta-" or procedural dimension of the round implicates the offensive arguments off of which I would vote. Sure, I’ll vote on them. But I usually only feel comfortable doing so if they are resolved clearly and there is a substantive instance of in-round (and not potential) abuse.