McMahan,+Cody

No School Affiliation:

In '11-'12 season I judged approximately 45 rounds of LD, 24 rounds of extemp and 6 rounds of congress. I judge at NFL, TFAand TOC qualifying tournaments. I judged qualifying rounds at 2011 NFL Nationals & final round of Grapevine LD.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for 6 years beginning in the late 1970’s. I have been judging LD for about 30 years. “When giving an alternative framework of any kind (theory, kritik, overviews, etc.), you need to explain the decision calculus in the round. In other words, you can choose whatever analytical strategy you want, but let me know WHAT you are doing, WHY you are doing it, and HOW that choice affects the way I adjudicate the round.” Of course you should do all of this within the traditional framework as well. If you're using jargon explain it once. Your primary responsibility is to persuade me through well-applied reasoning. I like both blisteringly fast technical debates and slower pursuasive rounds.

(why you really read these “philosophies")
 * // Things I Am Not Fond Of //**


 * Rudeness and Personal Attacks **


 * Unsupported Assertions ** – otherwise know as blips or blippy arguments. Warrants can be evidence or analytically based. Beware of evidence that is mere assertion.


 * Strawman argumentation ** – arguing against a supposed opponent/case rather than the one actually in the room with you – which is an old-fashioned way of saying clash is important.

A note on Kritiks – the joke can be on me, on debate, but not on your opponent. You must leave some ground for them to respond from. Performance Ks often do not do this, so I wouldn’t go there. On the other-hand claims fairness abuse or time skew abuse are not automatically going to be accepted. I will consider if I could find/create ground to gain offense from or could construct a reasonable opposition in the given time.
 * Creating unfair Burdens ** for your self or your opponent that are justified neither by the wording of the resolution nor the strictures of LD.


 * Logical Fallacies ** – “Due to the nature of LD, logical fallacies cripple an otherwise well-argued case; being able to ferret out logical fallacies in an opponent’s argument and to correctly identify them will earn speaker points, and can be devastating to your opponent’s case.”

This includes the Policy tactic of laying so much ground your opponent can’t cover it. In LD Speed should add depth not breadth to the argumentation. __ or because you have: __ -Failed to edit you case properly – this includes building complete blocks into your AC rather than laying the foundation for using the ones you choose to use to address your opponents arguments against your case and the resolution in the rebuttals. It also included poorly editing quotes. -Failed to understand the flow of the debate and isolate those things that are critical to my decision to join you in supporting or negating the resolution. In other words, if you are still spreading in the majority of the last speech I am inclined to believe you don’t know what’s important in the round and where the real clash lies. **__Clarity in speaking and thought is valued.__**
 * Bad **** Speeding ** __as a tactic (to obfuscate)__
 * Note: ** I don't mind rapid to very rapid delivery (Speeding) if the quality of the arguments is not compromised and it does not reflect the problems noted above. I am capable of processing the information at a very high rate, but I am looking for quality rather than quantity. Unless something drastic (say a huge Nietzschean redefinition of ‘just’) happens, I think gasping and davening (rocking) to speak faster is unnecessary and bordering on silly in an LD round.


 * Distracting or unpersuasive speaking styles or mannerisms ** This can include repetitive gestures, speeding __poorly__, misplaced emphasis, no or very little eye contact, the over use of jargon, speaking too much about winning the debate/round rather than convincing me to support your position. I find nuance far more persuasive than absolutism. This will effect speaker points far more than round outcome.


 * Spreading ** "I don't appreciate a "shotgun" approach to refutation, arguments should have depth and complexity, and I expect the debater to understand and point out their significance." I do not vote on “spread” if either debater gives me anything more valid/substantive to vote on – say persuasive, thoughtful, __weighted__ reasoning used to provide support or opposition to the resolution and/or opponents case. I don’t like b ** eing told to extend arguments ** that you have not sufficiently developed, impacted, applied or extended in your argumentation.

As long as it is explained effectively, I love hearing new ways of looking at the resolution. New insight, when done well, is impressive. When “appropriated” without understanding, it is frustrating and ineffective. “Arguments must be linked to your own thesis, your opponent's thesis, or the standards for the round. Similarly, I expect these to be the issues discussed as part of your closing statements, and am impressed by debaters who demonstrate a clear knowledge of the topics which were __central__ to the round.”
 * // What I look for: //**

To your opponent: Style and content - your job is provide insight and clash to prove the resolution true or to show your opponent has failed to do so, this requires moving toward some common ground where arguments can be weighed and truths tested. If each debater is on his own track and the common ground is not made the judge is left to intervene in his decision-making calculus. If you are against a far less capable opponent I respect it if you debate the round in a competent instructive way that is neither condescending nor “runs up the score” to humiliate them. Now, if you do just blow them out of the water, you still win but your speaks may be low and any sympathy I may have for you if the positions are ever reversed evaporates.
 * Adaptability ** : to the judge: If you know what my preferences are, you should adapt or choose not to and take the chance. On panels, I completely understand going for the majority vote if you have 2 policy judges and me.

**Post Round:** I am open to answering questions or giving critique. Civil disagreement is fine.

”I expect debaters to be Clear & Persuasive regardless of the rate of delivery. I look forward to hearing challenging, well-articulated rounds marked by direct clash & persuasive speaking.”

Good luck,

Note: Should the judge be Tabula Rasa? **No.** A judge’s personal __opinions__ should not become part of the evaluation of arguments or the reasons for decision. He should, however, strive to be a reasonable everyman who is limited to common knowledge; has a sufficient knowledge of the LD form and a basic understanding of the rules of logic and argumentation. If there is a departure from Common Knowledge, LD form or logic he can choose to either discount the assertion or dramatically lower the hurdle for the opposing debater to defeat that argument. E.g. the Aff offers a false analogy. The judge may choose to wait and discount the argument if the Neg minimally points out the error in logic, or he may discard the argument if it is blatantly false. I rarely dismiss out of hand, but reserve the right to in obvious cases of fallacious logic, abuse or assertions obviously contradicting facts held in common knowledge. I.e. increased peanut butter exports will not cause nuclear war. At lease not in LD.

Style note: I have tried to indicate any phrases //borrowed// from other judges philosophies by placing them in quotes. Thank you to those from whose writing I have excerpted.