McPherson,+Joseph

 Joseph McPherson

Debated 3 years CX at lone peak HS

Currently a sophmore debating at Snow college

Rounds on the Topic 8

 Over all philosophy
 * Debate is a game - I’m not going to tell you what you can and can’t run, I will try to be as open to anything as possible, so have fun and read what you like, just make sure you are explaining it well.
 * If it isn’t in the 1AR or 2NC/1NR I will do my best not to evaluate it
 * Prep ends when the flash drive is out of the computer, or the email is sent.
 * I'm fine with tagteam but overwhelming your partner will be reflected on your speaks.
 * If you are going to record a debate/speech you must get permission from the other debaters being recorded.

 Specific things

Theory – I have a avarage threshold for what constitutes a good theory argument. A very specific Multiple Conditional Worlds or Pics Bad argument will go very far. "Reject the argument, not the team" is usually enough for me not to vote on a theory argument besides specific examples of inround abuse, The more specific the violation and standars are to the debate round the more likely I will agree that there was abuse. If you read your theory block at 100% speed I will probably not flow it and be annoyed. In round abuse scenarios are preferred, but I will vote on potential abuse.

Topicality – I enjoy well explained and in depth topicality debates, but often feel this is lacking. I'm not a huge fan of generic "substantial" interpretations. I prefer you have a very specific interpretation and violation with the intent to define. i usually default with resonablity unless there is specific examples of inround abuse not just "education, grounds, ect. In round abuse has a lot more weight than potential abuse. Buzz words like “limits” “fairness” “predictability” aren't impacts, but rather internal links.

Disadvantages – Specific case arguments and a well-written disadvantage is probably my favorite kind of debate to watch. A specific disadvantage with up to date uniqueness and relevant links to the Aff will go a long way with me. Generic disads like “Spending” aren't as interesting, but always willing to vote on them if the link and impact are clear. I love a good politics debate; this includes evidence comparison and impact interaction. On any Disadvantage you need to have a clear scenario of how you get to your impact, especially extinction impacts. Just because you say "extinction" doesn't mean it is going to happen, prove why it matters or should be something I evaluate.

Counterplans – I will vote on any CP if it has a clear net benefit and solves majority of the affirmative. Reading through the CP text at full speed probably means I won’t know what the CP does and you will start behind in that debate. I will not kick the counterplan for you if it doesn't solve.

Kritiks - This seems to be the type of debate I participate in more as my debate career continues. I have participated in all types of these debates, from high theory to identity debates. You should feel comfortable to read whatever you want and have me be able to understand it. I think this type of debate is strategic and i'm eager to listen/vote on different kritiks. All I ask is that you make sure you explain it well and make the link/impact very clear. There should be a clear role of the ballot or role of the judge articulated by both teams. If you are reading a K aff I prefer you actually relate to the topic, but there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. Also, that doesn't mean I wont vote for you if you don't. To get my ballot with a non-traditional aff you just have to justify why your discussion is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution. Also, I find impact turns to most arguments a strategic decision that most teams don't take advantage of.