McNeese,+James

I am a Freshman in the Huntsman Program in International Studies and Business at the University of Pennsylvania. My area/language of focus is Arabic, so when it comes to knowledge of current events, I would I say that I am rather researched across the board, especially concerning Middle Eastern politics. During high school, I competed in Lincoln-Douglas style debate and International Extemp under the NSDA. I've competed at NSDA nationals in Public Forum debate once and International Extemp twice. In Oklahoma, my hometown, I won two state championships for my school, Metro Christian Academy, for LD debate and IX. I have also received bids for the ToC.

The style of Lincoln-Douglas debate in Oklahoma is very, very traditional. I have only ever run completely tradition cases with a value-criterion framework and contention level evidence and impacts. I have debated against more progressive cases such as kritiks and counter-plans. When it comes to what I would prefer to judge, I strongly believe that the best chance a debater has of convincing me to vote for them is for them to show me their best. So if your best is running a progressive case, then do it. I don't want someone to debate less than their best to try to suit what I am used to, because that adjustment could lose the round. That being said, I can easily interpret traditional cases without much explanation, which is something I can't do with some progressive cases. Due to that, if I am judging a non-traditional case, I would prefer if the debater took a little bit of extra time to explain the approach they are taking so that I know the terms they are framing the debate in.

As far as speaking, any speed is fine. I can understand fast and slow speakers, which helps the big picture for the debate, but understand that the faster the speaking is, the less I can write down. Thus, if an argument is much more important than the rest, slow down on it so that I know to write it down. At the end of it all, my flow matters more than my general feelings.

As far as etiquette goes, I value a polite debater more than anything else. The way you treat you opponent in a round won't make its way to the flow or the ballot but if I have a general distaste to you after witnessing the way you debate, that impression will in one way or another subconsciously make its way into my decision making process. Some tips: 1) I've seen some judges say that if you are giving a speech and you know you are winning, you should sit down early to add effect. Honestly that's bullshit. It's rude and I would never want to debate someone so cocky they thought to sit down early. In my eyes, if you can take a round that you are obviously winning and manage to squeeze every little bit out of it and use all of your time, while also staying polite in the process, that shows much greater debating skills. 2) This one isn't a big deal, but use all of your prep time. I know you may be ready to go with 2 minutes left in your last prep time, but in my mind, it just shows that you either have no clue what to say or you're once again, too cocky. I'd rather you sit there with the clock ticking than end it early. 3) When the 2AR is over, the debate round is over. Don't try to show me evidence after that and say that it clarifies this or clarifies that. The purpose of a debate round is for the competitors to show their debating skills and convince me of arguments. If you can't convince me to vote for you in the context of the round, then you don't deserve the vote. If there's something so important that it is worth showing me, then you should be saying that in the round.

At the end of the day, I will vote for the better debater who wins more arguments and makes me want to vote for them. If you give me reason to vote for you, I will.