McCormick,+Sullivan


 * Debated for Dallas Jesuit for four years then for Boston College**
 * Assistant Coach for Dallas Jesuit**

Impact calculus with comparative internal link discussions will help me resolve the debate in your favor especially when their are multiple impacts floating around. The most persuasive speeches will clearly articulate why their evidence is of a better quality than the other team. I will reward bold strategic decision making and attempts to resolve the debate by focusing on fewer but more important arguments. Less is more.

I find multiple conditionality and conditionality bad arguments that speak to the specifics of the 1nC strategy persuasive. However, theory needs to be developed earlier in the debate than the last rebuttal and needs to be very clear. I default to competing interpretations on Topicality and I want heavy impact comparison in the T debate.

In terms of K's make sure to contextualize the K story in terms of the specific 1ac being debated.

I don't have any predispositions toward types of affirmative as long as the FW arguments are innovative and sensible.

That being said, my ideal debate to watch is a meat and potatoes DA and case debate or a K and case debate. I tend to gravitate towards the team that strategically narrows the debate the soonest.