McNally,+Morgan

=Background:= I have a heavy college parli background, so a lot of my views on debate comes from that, though I've spent the last couple years steeping myself in high school LD, policy, and Public Forum. That means I have very little expectations for decorum, and could honestly not care about dress/presentation. As long as I can hear you, you're good. I view debate as an intellectual game, and my speaker points reflect that. My range is 26-30, with the average being around 27.5, though I won't hesitate to drop below that in instances of very poor strategic decisions or rudeness. Rudeness is probably the easiest way to lose speaker points, but I only expect a bare minimum of nice. Don't be a dick, and I won't drop your speaks.

=Speed:= I have a decent threshold, though I find myself occasionally being lost a top speed. That being said, I have no problem letting you know if you're going too fast for me by saying clear and giving clear non-verbals. I believe speed is another tool in the toolbox of the game of debate, however I really dislike top speed against a debater that clearly cannot handle it. I give my teammates heaps of crap for excluding poor first year debaters with speed. Don't be that person.

=Theory:= Debate's a game to me, so I don't require articulated abuse to win a position, though if you concede it I will have to. I default towards competing interpretations on theory positions unless stated otherwise. On the condo debate I am more persuaded by conditionality being a bad idea, but I think that only manifests itself in situations where it is absurdly abusive, in which case condo should probably already be an argument in the debate.

=General Approach:= In general, I am open to whatever arguments you might have in your tub, so whip out whatever you debate best and are most comfortable with. That being said, there are always proclivities to any judge, whether they admit them or not. While I really dislike arguments that I don't think are intellectually honest, I will only punish speaks if it is not called out. In LD specifically, I find that certain areas of philosophy require more of an explanation than normal, mostly post-modern and post-structural, so a mini underview or overview, even a smart CX answer, will clear that up for me. Additionally, I find that unless you plan on having a heavy framework debate, some policy contextualization makes the round much easier to judge, meaning I am pretty open to policy alternatives and proposals.

A side note: I disclose unless I am explicitly told not to (heat from tab is no bueno). If there are two flights I'll try my best to be brief. That being said, ask questions! I think that the largest reason for gaps of understanding in the decision from the judge could be remedied by asking questions, and I am open to them.