McPeak,+Joseph

I debated for four years at LaSalle College High School near Philadelphia, PA. I never really debated much at all on the circuit level but I did attend camp at the National Debate Forum and I have coached for a few years at Merion Mercy Academy and I am now coaching at LaSalle. This has led to me judging at both local and national tournaments, so I am OK with most "circuit" styles of debating. I consider myself to be a pretty "tabula rasa" judge. I do not want to have to do any thinking in the round. Please, give me a standard for me to look at the round, tell me why it's the appropriate standard, and give me reasons why you win that standard. I do not care if it's a "stock" argument, theory-based, kritik-based, a plan, counter plan etc. There is no such thing as an argument that I will vote down on its face. Nor will I ignore an argument that you've clearly extended and impacted over unpersuasive or non-existent responses from your opponent, just because I think it's "stupid" or that it's "ruining debate" etc. And even though I do appreciate well-warranted arguments, I'm not going to overlook an argument you've made just because I think that it isn't warranted, at least so long if your opponent doesn't call you out on it. The round belongs to you, the debaters. It does not belong to me. One exception to this rule that I've noticed over the time that I've been judging is that I do tend to enter the round with a presumption towards the negative. I have often found myself "default negating" when I feel that neither side has put anything good on the flow. I always tell debaters that this little tick of mine should only apply in a round of equally bad debaters, not equally good debaters. Lately however I am starting to come off of this idea, and not just because it has led to some awkwardly demoralizing moments when I do cast a default NEG ballot. So absent an independent argument from the negative saying that I should presume neg, I might not be "default negating" anymore. Of course, for reasons mentioned above, if either side ever gives me an independent reason for why I should presume his/her side, or why each side's burden is a certain way etc., I will not shoot that down based on my own interpretation of the topic. Again, the round is yours, not mine. On speed: do it at your own risk. I feel like I can handle most levels of speed, but everyone has a limit. If I can't understand what you're saying, then I can't write it down or give you credit for that argument. I enforce this rule equally on speed debaters and slower talking debaters who are just unclear. I will never vote against you just because you're speaking fast. I will not vote against a fast-speaking or spread debater because I think he or she is "ruining debate." I am not out to voice my opinion on where debate should go when I cast my ballot. So long as I can see where the arguments are going and why you should be winning them, you should be fine, even if it's clear to me that your opponent can't handle your speed. As a side note, I usually do expect debaters to be OK with letting each other see their blocks/cases during the round, whether we have a spread debater in the room or not. Finally, I do NOT take off time for road mapping before your speech, because that would be just plain silly. Good luck, and have fun.