McCartney,Jonathan

Jonathan McCartney – Judge Philosophy Caddo Magnet/ Univ. Texas I try to be open minded and listen to all arguments in a debate. While considering either policymaking or critical arguments, I try to evaluate the debate based on the arguments clearly and articulately presented by the debaters within the round, specifically on arguments clearly developed in late rebuttals that are best supported by evidence or analysis. Speed is fine, but clarity of arguments is vital to my comprehension and my ability to flow, particularly since I don’t judge that regularly. Please be polite and respectful to your opponents. Generally, I will listen to most any type of argument, but I do have some preferences: 1) Framework - I generally think affirmatives should defend a topical proposal that supports the resolution. That can be either a more traditional policy making type of affirmative or a proposal that has more critical basis for support; however I tend to find that when all arguments for and against are made in a debate: its good to have a plan.  As a default setting, and unless the framework is clearly established to be otherwise by the debaters in the round - I am inclined to think many debates are better when affirmatives defend the policy implications of their plan, although I have been persuaded otherwise. I frequently find myself evaluating framework debates by evaluating the case impacts vs the kritk impacts, because framework debates are often intractable. I do enjoy crafty, innovative and specific kritks and I always like a good explanation of specifically how the kritk turns the case. I do think the negative can win that I should look to a framework other than policy making but they need to clearly establish the role of my ballot and the method through which I should evaluate the debate. If left to my own devices my natural default is to compare the policy consequences of plan vs status quo or competitive alternative. 2) Counterplans – I miss them. I want to see more of them. Creative counter plans are underappreciated. The art of beautiful and abusive counterplans seems to be lacking. Lets have more of them.  3) Theory arguments – I also like these, when they are well developed, well nuanced, and articulated clearly. While I may be inclined to be mostly sympathetic to the negative when it comes to many counter plan arguments in general, that does not mean I will not vote affirmative on theory. Somewhere, deep in my debate memories, I have great sympathy for the affirmative team who has been spread out by a crafty negative strategy, and has nothing left but very carefully deployed theory arguments. 4) Topicality – I miss this. I like Topicality with strong evidence based interpretations that are comparative. Quality of evidence and sources matters. Limits and ground, particularly predictable ground, matter. The ability to participate and be prepared for debates is important and topicality plays an important role in that function. I vastly prefer good topicality debates to framework debates. I would rather see negative teams go for nuanced topicality arguments against a critical affirmative, than see them go for framework; but I haven’t often seen that lately.  5) Disads – its all about the link. Some people think its the impact – and that’s somewhat true - timeframe, magnitude, etc but especially if it can validly and articulately turn the case. But really, its about the Link first. The links to disadvantages – and advantages – are generally the most under appreciated and under developed portion of the argument. I primarily evaluate arguments by assessing the strength of the link. Comparative link arguments are essential to winning any disad, kritk, case turn, etc. 6) Impact comparison – this wins and loses more debates than nearly anything else. Debates are most easily decided by who does better impact comparison in the last rebuttals. Cards supporting timeframe, or magnitude are nice. Explaining how the disad or kritk turns the case is also a plus, but having evidence to prove it can be decisive.  7) Background – for those who like background, I have been a volunteer assistant coach for Caddo Magnet for approximately 15+ years now. Before that I was a debater at the University of Texas from 1999-2002. I also assistant coached at UT from 2002-2005. The last time I judged at the NDT was 2008. I have judged occasionally at a few tournaments every year or so at regional high school tournaments in Louisiana and Texas in the past decade. For the past ten years I have practiced law in Louisiana, principally focused on energy regulatory work, as well as railroad and business representation. I always admired high school judges like Wayne Tang and John Rains III, who both practiced law and helped coach and judge debates.