McNeil,+Drew

Background: Debated for four years in HS at Jenks in Tulsa, OK. Currently a senior debater at the University of Texas. This will be my fourth year judging HS debates.

Philosophy:

Overview: Generally put, I like debates where both teams are genuinely engaging each others arguments. I like evidence comparison, impact calculus, and engaging cross-examination. I like people who are nice and reasonable when interacting with their opponents, but I also value a competitive spirit and think ethos are very important. How aggressive should you be in a debate round? Aggressive enough to control the tenor of the debate, but not so aggressive that you hinder the ability for your opponents to communicate or make the debate experience uncomfortable.

More specifically:

Generally, I don't care at all what type of arguments you read. I like disads, counterplans, topicality, kritiks, performance, everything. I think debate is amazing precisely because of the argumentative diversity it fosters. The only thing I really care about is that you debate your argument well and try and apply it specifically to the context of the round. I don't really know if anyone has any preconceptions about me as a judge, but I am guessing that some people might be recognize that I generally run the K. This is generally true (although throughout my career I have gone for politics, topicality, consult CP's, and a variety of non-K arguments), but that is largely for strategic reasons and not because of some overarching ideological bias. Do what you do best, and I will try and judge the round as fairly as possible.

With that said, I guess I can try and comment on particular issues:

Kritiks---I like them when deployed well, and dislike them when deployed poorly. Specific links are good, so are historical examples, analogies, and a good understanding of your argument. Warning: I feel that policy aff's continue to get better at answering the kritik, especially in terms of weighing case impacts, and so be prepared to go deep on your impact vs. nuclear war/extinction. All too often I see good kritiks go down in flames because they aren't deep enough on the impact level.

Affs vs. Kritiks---Make your answers specific to the kritik. Try and weigh your case mpx against the kritik. Use reason to indict the kritik you are debating.

Disads--- I like these. Don't just read cards, but also explain your story. Don't highlight the warrants out of your cards in pursuit of evidence quantity. I am a politics hound (actual politics, not just the disad) and have a soft spot for elections debates, but try and apply your link to the specifics of the political situation as opposed to just reading tired "plan=bipart" or "winners win" links. When reading a disad about something that is somewhat obscure, please clarify any confusing abbreviations or other less-than-obvious references. I am not deep in your topic literature. This comment applies not only to disads, but to policy arguments generally.

Counterplans-- I like these too. Specific>Generic.

Topicality/Theory--- Don't spew incomprehensible 5 second theory blips at me. I will resent you and not flow you very well. If you are reading theory/topicality arguments, explain what the world of your interp would look like in concrete terms. I kind of despise competing interpretations, but I will evaluate things through that lens if you win that it is preferable to reasonability. Just don't assume that I default to your particular way of viewing these debates. Justify your lens for evaluating theory and topicality.

Framework vs kritik affs---make your interpretation as reasonable as possible. Use policymaking good substance more than abstract limits/fairness claims. Explain your standards in the context of the particular round/particular aff.

CX--- This is very important to me. Look good, help bolster your arguments, and clarify anything you are confused by. Be funny, be assertive, and don't bore me. I don't flow CX, but I do listen to it closely and it does influence the way I decide debates. Also, if you get something important out of a CX, remember to use it in later speeches. All too often I see effective cross examination where important concessions are drawn out, only for no more discussion to occur on the issue in later speeches.

Paperless---Don't be shady. Try and make your speeches contain the cards you actually plan to read. Try and not hold the debate up too much.

Underview (don't have these in your debate rounds plz):

Be nice yet aggressive, specific yet aware of larger meta-issues, funny without trying too hard, and try and engage the other team.