McCullough,+Hunter

I debated for three years at Joshua High School and 5 years at the University of North Texas.

For me, the idea that the judge should remain impartial is very important. I've had long discussions about the general acceptability/desirability of specific debate arguments and practices (as has everybody, I'm sure), but I've found that those rarely influence my decisions. I've probably voted for teams without plans in framework debates more often than I've voted neg, and I've voted for the worst arguments I can imagine, even in close debates, if I thought framing arguments were won. While nobody can claim to be completely unbiased, I try very hard to let good debating speak for itself. That being said, I do have some general predispositions, which are listed below.

T-Theory - I tend to err aff on T and neg on most theory arguments. By that, I mean that I think that the neg should win a good standard on T in order to win that the aff should lose, and I also believe that theory is usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team. - Conditional advocacies are good, but making contradictory truth claims is different. However, I generally think these claims are less damaging to the aff than the "they made us debate against ourselves" claim would make it seem. The best 2ACs will find ways of exploiting bad 1NC strategy, which will undoubtedly yield better speaker points than a theory debate, even if the aff wins. - I go back and forth on whether reasonability is a good standard on topicality. I'm not going to say how I feel about it at this moment, because it'll probably change by the time I'm actually judging a debate, but that should at least indicate that winning this debate is possible on both sides, and also can't be phoned in (you can't just say " reasonability = judge intervention" in the 2NR and expect me to check in). - My view of debates outside of/critical of the resolution is also complicated. While my philosophy has always been very pro-plan reading in the past, I've found that aff teams are often better at explaining their impact turns than the neg<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> is at winning an impact that makes sense. That being said, I think that it's hard for the aff<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> to win these debates if the neg<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> can either win that there is a topical version of the affirmative that minimizes the risk of the aff's<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> impact turns, or a compelling reason why the aff<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> is better read on the negative. Obviously there are arguments that are solved by neither, and those are likely the best 2AC impact turns to read in front of me.

CPs<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> - I'm certainly a better judge for CP/DA debates than K v K debates. I particularly like strategic PICs<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> and good 1NC strategies with a lot of options. I'd be willing to vote on consult/conditions, but I find permutation arguments about immediacy/plan-plus persuasive. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- I think the neg <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> gets away with terrible CP solvency all the time. Affs <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> should do a better job establishing what counts as a solvency card, or at least a solvency warrant. This is more difficult, however, when your aff's <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> solvency evidence is really bad. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- I don't think perms are ever a reason to reject the aff <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- I don't think illegitimate CPs <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> are a reason to vote aff <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">.

Disads<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> - Run them. Win them. There's not a whole lot to say. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- I'd probably vote on some sort of "fiat solves" argument on politics, but only if it was explained well. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Teams that invest time in good, comparative impact calculus will be rewarded with more speaker points, and likely, will win the debate. " Disad <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">/Case outweighs" isn't a warrant. Talk about your impacts, but also make sure you talk about your opponents impacts. "Economic collapse is real bad" isn't as persuasive as "economic collapse is faster and controls uniqueness for the aff's heg <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> advantage".

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times;">Ks - My general line has always been that "I get the K but am not well read in every literature". I've started to realize that that statement is A) true for just about everybody and B) entirely useless. It turns out that I've read, coached, and voted for Ks too often for me to say that. What I will say, however, is that I certainly focus my research and personal reading more on the policy side, but will generally make it pretty obvious if I have no idea what you're saying. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Make sure you're doing link analysis to the plan. I find "their ev is about the status quo <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">" arguments pretty persuasive with a permutation. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Don't think that just because your impacts "occur on a different level" means you don't need to do impact calculus. A good way to get traction here is case defense. Most advantages are pretty silly and false, point that out with specific arguments about their internal links. It will always make the 2NR easier if you win that the aff <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> is lying/wrong. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- I think the alt is the weakest part of the K, so make sure to answer solvency arguments and perms very well. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- If you're aff <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">, and read a policy aff <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">, don't mistake this as a sign that I'm just going to vote for you because I read mostly policy arguments. If you lose on the K, I'll vote neg <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">. Remember, I already said I think your advantage is a lie. Prove me wrong.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">Case - Don't ignore it. Conceding an advantage on the neg <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> is no different than conceding a disad <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> on the aff <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">. You should go to case in the 1NC, even if you just play defense. It will make the rest of the debate so much easier. <span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times;">- If you plan to extend a K in the 2NR and use that to answer the case, be sure you're winning either a compelling epistemology argument or some sort of different ethical calculus. General indicts will lose to specific explanations of the aff<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> absent either good 2NR analysis or extensions of case defense. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- 2As... I've become increasingly annoyed with 2ACs that pay lip service to the case without responding to specific arguments or extending evidence/warrants. Just reexplaining <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> the advantage and moving on isn't sufficient to answer multiple levels of neg <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> argumentation.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times;">Other notes - I haven't done a whole lot of in-depth research on this topic, so make sure I understand what's going on when you're making arguments. If I don't understand what you're talking about, I probably can't evaluate your argument to its fullest potential. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Really generic backfile <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> arguments ( Ashtar <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">, wipeout <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">, etc) won't lose you the round, but don't expect great speaks. I just think those arguments are //really terrible//, (I can't describe how much I hate wipeout <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> debates) and bad for debate. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Impact turn debates are awesome, but can get very messy. If you make the debate impossible to flow, I will not like you. Don't just read cards in the block, make comparisons about evidence quality and uniqueness claims. Impact turn debates are almost always won by the team that controls uniqueness and framing arguments, and that's a debate that should start in the 2AC.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times;">Paperless debate - I don't think you need to take prep time to flash your speech to your opponent, but it's also pretty obvious when you're stealing prep, so don't do it. If you want to use viewing computers, that's fine, but only having one is unacceptable. The neg<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> needs to be able to split up your evidence for the block. It's especially bad if you want to view their speeches on your viewing computer too. Seriously, people need access to your evidence. If the tournament we're at has reliable internet<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times;"> access, I will probably request that evidence is handled by an email chain. Trust me, it's just easier.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times;">Finally, here is a short list of general biases. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- The status quo <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> should always be an option in the 2NR (Which doesn't necessarily mean that the neg get's <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> infinite flex. If they read 3 contradictory positions, I can be persuaded that it was bad despite my predisposition towards conditionality) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Warming is real and science is good (same argument, really) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- The aff <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> gets to weigh case against the K <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Timeframe <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> and probability are more important than magnitude (because everything causes extinction anyways) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Predictable limits are key to both fairness and education <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Consult counterplans <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> aren't competitive. Conditions is arguable. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Utilitarianism is a good way to evaluate impacts <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- The aff <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;"> should defend a topical plan <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'times new roman',times; line-height: 1.5;">- Death and extinction are bad