McHugh,+Megan

I debated at Desert Vista (AZ) for four years and graduated in 2010. I coached there for 2.5 years, and I now direct the LD lab at the Southwest Speech and Debate Institute and coach at Brophy College Prep (AZ).

Although I mostly want you all to take the round where you want to, I do have a few preferences.

I think this activity has a lot of educational value, so purposefully doing things to make the round unclear for me or your opponent, like excessively evasive answers in cross-x or speaking incoherently, is not okay. I think that it is in your best interest to make your arguments and their implications as clear as possible throughout the round, even if just so that I can better understand your advocacy. And, I think debaters who can be upfront about their arguments and defend them well are more impressive than ones who hide and shift their advocacy just to win.

On the same note, my favorite rounds are the ones in which it is clear that a debater is really passionate about the argument they're reading. That (alongside a deep desire to win) they wrote that case because it was something they thought needed to be said. These sorts of cases are unquestionably more impactful to listen to than stock cases cut from briefs. Of course, I would hope that such a case would not advocate on behalf of morally repugnant ideas (sexism, racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, or is in other ways exclusionary).

I am fine with speed; however, there is an expectation that if you go fast, you will have more in-depth analysis. So long as you are clear, I should not have a problem with any speed that you go. But I will yell clear or slow accordingly. Also, please please please slow down for author names and tags - it is crucial that I catch them.

I am not a big fan of theory debates. Which is to say I really don't want to hear it. If you decide to go for it anyway, know that, for me, theory is judged on reasonability (not competing interps), and it is only a reason to reject the argument (not the debater). I am also much more persuaded by education voters than by fairness ones. Additionally, if you run theory for the sake of running theory or making your opponent (especially the affirmative) jump through hoops, I will be extremely frustrated with you. If they argue that it's a ridiculous violation, I'll drop the shell, and you'll probably lose some speaker points. That being said, it’s probably best if you just pretend that I don’t understand theory as it is run in shell form, and just focus on the substance instead. You’ll probably like the outcome better.

I also find that I am generally unpersuaded by presumption arguments. Except in beginning novice rounds, someone is always winning something, and I feel comfortable voting on that something even absent a clear framework. Usually when I get to the point of making a decision like that, it's because things were really messy or you and your opponent are doing equal work on the important things, so my decision ultimately reflects who did a slightly better job. As such, I'd much rather that you all spend more time talking substantively about the resolution such that we can best try to avoid the types of situations in which many judges would vote on presumption. Also, I semi-subconciously start making assumptions about your credibility when you make a presumption argument because it's really just an easy/lazy way out after you've muddled the debate.

I don't care if you provide a traditional value and criterion framework; I only ask that you make some sort of standard/burden/thing for the round clear. If you do provide a traditional value and criterion, don't get caught up in this part of the debate. Resolve it quickly and then move on to the real arguments. The exception is of course if you develop a philosophy or framework for viewing the “world” at the top of the case. If you do that, please don't just ignore it, unless it's essentially the same as your opponent's.

There is nothing more frustrating than messy framework debates. I certainly like framework debates, but most of the time I find that people do a bad job comparing frameworks and telling me how they function/what to do with them. If I'm left with a bunch of stuff and no explanation of how to prefer one conception of something like where morality comes from, I'm going to just create my own story and go with the arguments that make sense to me. Also, if you're going to read pretty dense philosophy, or something that I may not be familiar with, I suggest you slow down a little bit, and at the very least give me a synopsis of the advocacy. If I don't understand it, we have a problem.

I have no problem with plans, counter-plans, disads, parametricized cases, or Ks. I think they add educational value to the discussion. So I probably won't buy theory saying that they shouldn't be allowed, unless they quite literally leave no ground for the other debater. I would instead prefer that you answer these arguments by explaining how they don't do something like answer the central question of the resolution, or indict the specific warrants.

I really like critical literature, and am inclined to buy it. Though, I won't do any extra work for you, so you absolutely have to run it well. I also won't vote for you just because you're running something critical - you still have to win it.

Please weigh arguments/impacts throughout the round. If I have to do the weighing for you, you might not like the outcome. And don't wait until the last speech to weigh - I am much more likely to buy your analysis if it stays constant through the round instead of randomly stuck on at the end.

Extensions are really important to me. Things don't just auto flow through for you just because you talked about them in a previous speech. You absolutely have to tell me what to extend, and this should include a claim, warrant, impact, and what it does for you in the round. I will not give you the benefit of the doubt on bad/incomplete extensions.

Although I do not flow cx, and make my decisions off of my flow, I do think that it plays an important role in the round. It is your chance to interact with your opponent and show me just how smart you are/how much work you've done on the resolution. Use this time to your advantage. I will recognize when someone is giving evasive answers, and you should reference these poor answers in your rebuttals. That said, debaters who are just reasonable about arguments in cx are likely to get better speaker points. And I do enjoy cross-examinations that are a little more on the sassy side. Though, don't be disrespectful to your opponent - there's a fine line. Usually when you think you're being funny and they're getting mad, that's a red flag to step down a bit (even if just for my dislike of awkward situations). Finally, please don't ask for flex prep. You must spend the three minutes on cx. I am completely fine with you asking clarification questions during prep though.

Generally speaker points are based on strategic decisions in speeches. I.e. what you chose to go for, what you dropped, and how well your advocacy was extended. And, probably most importantly, how well you tied things together for me. If my decision is easy to make because you've told me exactly how to deal with arguments, you will get high speaks. And substantively responsive strategies will always get more speaker points than ones that rely on generic blocks. CX is also generally the difference between a 29 and a 30, or wherever you fall on the scale.

Ultimately, what I'm looking for is for you to tell me the story of what it means to affirm or negate in the round. This means not neglecting the big picture - packing your argument neatly enough that I understand your central claim and which arguments you need in order to meet your burden. This also means telling me how to navigate everything else on the flow such that I can safely vote on the arguments you present. It's not enough to tell me that you win an extension - I need to know why it's relevant to my decision calculus and how to get there.

Unless I've been personally directed not to, or something crazy happens and I need some time to think about my decision, I will disclose. I am more than happy to talk about what happened in the round, how I evaluated specific arguments, and what you should have done differently. What I am not okay with is debaters trying to convince me that I made the wrong decision. If those arguments didn't persuade me the first time, they won't the second time. And I will not reverse my decision, so arguing with me post-round will only result in a loss of speaker points/my respect for you.

Also, I really hate the phrase "as a quick off time roadmap." When has it ever been not off time? And it better be quick or it isn't a roadmap. All I want is the name of the flow or the piece of the case you're starting with. E.g. Aff then neg. Or, counter plan then AC. Or, framework on both sides then aff then neg.

Finally, show some personality, have fun, and make smart arguments! :)

If you have any specific questions, I am more than happy to discuss them before the round.