McNeil,+David


 * Update November 2017: I'm out of the activity at this point and just judge at one or two tournaments each year.** **I'm pretty sure I still believe everything below but I'm less technically proficient at flowing, etc.**

Last reviewed October, 2012

__My Experience/ Debate Background:__ I debated LD at Edina High School in Minnesota (class of '09) for four years on both the local and national circuits. I was a summer instructor at the Victory Briefs Institute (VBI) in 2009 through 2012, and at the National Debate Forum (NDF) in 2011 and 2012. I coached LD Debate at The Blake School in 2010 and 2011. I currently attend Carleton College in Northfield, MN (class of '13) where I am on the Parliamentary Debate team, debating occasionally on the NPDA circuit.

=__Paradigm__=

__Short Version:__ Debate the way that you are most comfortable debating, just be sure to **(1)** annunciate if you are speaking quickly (**I will call "clear" __ONCE__** -- if you are unclear after that and I didn't fully understand your argument, I will give that argument significantly less weight than arguments that I better understood, and //I will not call for the ill-annunciated or explained argument// //after the round//), **(2)** respect the people in the room, and **(3)** tell me why I should vote for you.

__Longer Version:__ I will vote on arguments that are made by the debaters in the round. I do not care what form these arguments take (plans, narratives, performances, critical arguments, skepticism, stock arguments, theory, whatever you want to do, I'll listen to and potentially vote on anything), but what I do want is for you to explain why your arguments justify me signing the ballot in your favor. This means it's probably a good idea to compare arguments/ weigh, explain what you're impacting those arguments to (whether it's a criterion or something else), and then show why that thing you're impacting to matters in terms of the decision calculus.

I believe that debate is a forum for debaters to make whatever kind of arguments they want, as long as they can back them up. That means there is no argument or mode of debate that I will ever preemptively disqualify from the discussion, as long as you can justify your approach.

I prefer substantive debate, but I believe that this can take many forms. I'll be just as impressed with a fast paced theory debate that's fleshed out and intelligently argued by both sides, as I will be by a slow stock debate that still goes into depth about the issues being discussed. Spreading is fine (I'll probably be persuaded by a well layered spread with good refutation and argument diversification), but I will not vote on one sentence blips. These are not arguments.

I like it when debaters can keep things interesting by varying their argument style and strategy. That being said, I am unlikely to vote for your arguments if you cannot explain them. If you don't understand what you're talking about, chances are I probably won't either.


 * Lastly, it is critically important that you explain the function and interaction of framework arguments in the round**, if there is a framework debate. My experience is that this level of the debate is more often than not the source of confusion in rounds, with debaters often glossing over distinctions between or implications of framework arguments. This is especially important with resolutions that are heavily philosophical, as opposed to policymaking-based. Don't assume that I know what your framework means or how arguments in the round (whether on the framework or contention level) interact with it--__**provide thorough explanation and comparison of competing framework warrants.**__

__Speed__: Go as fast as you want, just be clear. If I stop flowing, that's probably a sign that I can't understand you anymore. I will say clear once if I cannot understand you while you are reading--after that, it's all on you. I.e., **if I do not understand something you are saying after I have said "clear" once, it will not go on my flow, and I will not say "clear" again or call for your evidence, and I will probably not end up giving your ill-annunciated argument as much credit as other arguments in the round (ones that I more holistically understood).**

__Theory__: __RVI's:__ I will listen to arguments for why RVI's are good or bad. I do not have any pre-round bias for or against RVI's themselves (though certainly arguments defending or indicting RVI's are capable of being better or worse than other arguments). __Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability:__ Same thing. I will default to whichever way I am told to evaluate theory. If there's debate over whether I should look to competing interpretations or reasonability, I will of course evaluate that debate first before resolving any of the theory claims that are being made. If literally no argument is made for whether I should look to competing interpretations or reasonability, I will default to whatever the implicit consensus is in the round. (i.e. if the Aff makes 5 general responses to a T shell in the 1AR that are not in the form of a counter-interpretation with counter-standards/ reasons to prefer, I am not going to impose competing interpretations as the way that I evaluate theory--I'll look to reasonability, assuming there were no arguments made for why competing interpretations should be the preferred framework for evaluation).

Finally, I will never vote against a debater for departing from my preferred style. There are only two exceptions to this rule. I may vote down a debater who is: 1) rude to the extreme to their opponent (I'm talking about emotionally/ physically intimidating them, profane name calling with clearly malicious intent directed at your opponent, etc.) I don't mind aggression in rounds--you can shout, stomp your foot, swear, throw your expando, smash your timer, rip up your case, take off your pants, whatever you want to do to make a statement or emphasize your point. Just **__be respectful of the other people in the room__**. 2) offensive to a very, very severe degree. In other words, don't use hate speech in round. I feel like this should be obvious--I just want to include it so that you know that yes, circumstances do exist where I will intervene (though again, I can guarantee that these are the only two).

Do research, be creative, have fun. If you have any questions about how I judge (I realize there may be specific issues that this paradigm doesn't address), please ask.