Cronin,+McClure+(Mac)

 For e-mail chains and any questions: mcclurecronin@gmail.com Sage Ridge School '13 and Wake Forest '17 Conflicts: Sage Ridge HS, Damien HS, McQueen HS, Wake Forest University YOU DO YOU!!! I cannot stress that enough. Be aware of my general thoughts on debate, but I want to judge the debate that you want to have!! I have increasingly found that my role as an educator and adjudicator in debate prioritizes the debaters themselves, whatever argument that they want to make, and providing them with the advice and opportunities to be better that I can. I consider myself a hard working judge. I will flow, I will read cards, and I will take the time to make the best decision I can. One quick note on the education topic -- I think it is super cool that high school debaters can talk about something that so directly effects them, and would love to see debaters engage the topic from their unique perspectives and experiences. Not a necessity, but I think that would be rad. That being said, the following are my thoughts on certain arguments and some pointers on how to win my ballot.  The kritik - didn't go for it much in high school, but by the end of my college debate career all my debates were 1, maybe 2, off. I'm decently read in a lot of different theories and genuinely enjoy reading critical theory, but I still prefer clarity in explanation. The less jargon you use, the easier it will be to win a K in front of me. I think that perms are generally the affirmatives best friend in these debates, but well thought out and specific link arguments to the aff can help check against that. Framework is always a big portion of how I evaluate these debates, so if you are aff then I hope that you are explaining why I should prioritize your decision making calculus and why your impacts are relevant. I also think impact turning is something that is truly underutilized by affirmatives that are facing off with a kritik. I like overviews that layer out the impact debate and make smart turns case arguments, I also like 1ARs that answer the overview explicitly and in line by line style. The flourishing of performance debate has really effected the way that I think about form and content in the debate setting. I think these arguments are extremely valuable to the activity and I thoroughly enjoy debates about debate as well.  The DA - I think these debates are pretty straight forward. Do your impact calc, win your link, answer uniqueness overwhelms, etc. Please don't try to weasel out of a DA that has been straight turned :)  The CP - don't judge as many of these debates as I would like. A good counterplan with a specific solvency advocate will impress me. I think these arguments are relatively straight forward as well. In terms of theory issues like PICs bad, condo bad, etc., I truly don't have much of an opinion on these issues, but that doesn't mean I will let you get away with shenanigans. I would prefer arguments to be contextualized to in round abuse claims and how the role of the affirmative became structural impossible for x, y, and z reasons. Rarely do I judge a theory debate, but I would be interested to hear more of them. I personally do not think that I should be able to kick a CP for the negative. I think the 2NR needs to make that choice for themselves and stick with it. That doesn't necessarily mean I cannot be persuaded otherwise, however.  Topicality - I like T debates. Limits isn't an impact in and of itself, I want to hear more explanation on how limits effects what should be your "vision of the topic" holistically, what affs and ground exist within it, and why those debates are good. Education impacts that are contextualized and specific will go a long way for me, whether it be in the context of the aff or the resolution.  Framework - Not a huge fan of this argument. I am an advocate for engaging with the affirmative and whatever it is that they have to say. I never read framework in my own debates, and I don't think it should be taken off the table completely as an option, but if you do plan to go for it just know that I require a lot more work on a topical version of the aff and some sort of in-road to how you resolve the claims of the 1AC. I believe that forcing people to epistemically defend the USFG at times can be violent. That being said, I still can understand the strategic utility/necessity in some instances, I might just have a slightly higher bar than other judges.  Other things - if there is anything else, please feel free to ask me. I know that some of this is vague, but my thoughts tend to change based off of the argument that is being presented and how exactly it is explained. I probably lean more on the side of truth over tech, but that doesn't mean I will make a decision wholly irrelevant to what is said in the debate unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary and something terrible happened in the debate. I have absolutely no qualms checking debaters that are racist/sexist/ableist/anti-queer. That being said, I look forward to judging you and happy prep!