McCue,+Michael


 * Pine Crest School Class of 2014 **
 * Northwestern University Class of 2018 **

I’ve been debating at Pine Crest for 5 years. I am a student of the game and love argument innovation and the activity in general. I am thinking about debate an insane amount of time, especially during school, and hope that my dedication to the activity will be shown through my attentiveness in round. There are a few caveats if I am judging you discussed below but if you have any questions that aren’t answered there are a couple of steps you can take:

1. Look at other judging philosophies. The judges that I believe I am most similar to are: Jeremy Hammond ( http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hammond%2C+Jeremy ), Will Repko ( http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Repko%2C+Will ) and Garrett Abelkop ( http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Abelkop%2C+Garrett ). One of my favorite judges is jon sharp ( http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/sharp%2C+jon ) though, so I’m not just influenced by MSU.

2. Ask me if you still can’t find anything. The question “what are your preferences” is annoying so be specific.

**Meta-Judging Philosophy-** I believe that the purpose of the judge is to not only decide debates but to also decide what curriculum should be debated. Arguments such as timecube, dada and ashtar have little to no educational benefit. These can be adequately answered by saying “this is nonsensical and hasn’t disproven the aff” and moving on.  Absent the arguments above, there are a few things below that you should read if you are debating in front of me. I do think that tech is *very* important, but connections are as well. The point of a debate is to convince the judge to vote for you. The way that ethos are developed are by making __connections__ with the judge. These are extremely good for speaker points as well. At the same time, I default to tech over truth. If you win an argument/one is dropped even if it isn't the best then I will vote for you.

Clarity is more important than speed. Speed is measured in the number of arguments that the judge has on their flow, not how many words per minute you can speak.

When judging at round robins/tournaments with no prefs I will try to judge with as few predispositions as possible.  Judges usually give the 2AR too much leeway.

I lean more towards cards and believe that solid evidence and a good work ethic are two of the most important aspects in a successful debater.

A team that is caught cheating will be given zero speaker points and a loss. It is important for the other team to have a recording of the cheating team to decide the debate on this. **Paperless-** Prep time ends when the jump drive exits the computer of the debater giving the speech. I will be keeping track of prep but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t as well, keeping in mind that what I say goes. Not flowing is a terrible side effect of paperless and can be punished at my discretion.

**Critical Affirmatives-** I ran them. I will listen to them. I will vote for them. I find these debates to be very interesting, but I hate when they become very personal/polemical to the point of putting everyone in the debate (including me) in an extraordinarily awkward or angry situation. If your argument is not based around identity I do think that you have an uphill battle on framework. This being said, I do enjoy affirmatives that defend topical action centered around a kritik. One example of this is the Cuban Hospitality aff.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">**Disadvantages-** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I am a big fan of a good politics debate as well as any in depth disad debate. I find it hard, if not impossible, for the affirmative to defeat a disadvantage without a source of offense.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Impact calculus is very important when deciding any debate, and the more that you can get away from the traditional A. Magnitude, B. Probability, C. Timeframe model is better but only if you maintain the integrity of the arguments.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">**Counterplans-** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Counterplans mitigate the risk of affirmative advantages against the disadvantage, and the 2NR should frame the debate in this way. I have found that without a solvency deficit to a counterplan the negative wins an astounding percentage of the time. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">There is a debate as to what types of counterplans are acceptable in a debate, as well as what counterplans can fiat. I generally believe counterplans such as consult, conditions, recommendations, plan contingent counterplans or counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy are both abusive and not competitive. A counterplan should be both textually and functionally competitive, but this is up for debate and I can be persuaded otherwise. Competition is defined as both better than the plan and better than a combination of the plan and all or part of the counterplan.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">**Kritiks -** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I believe that I am a much better judge for kritiks on the negative as opposed to the affirmative. Avoid falling into a debate about random buzzwords at all costs and engage the aff. I understand the technicalities of the kritik debate and am perfectly fine with the negative reading and going for kritiks such as Security, Lacan/Psychoanalysis, Cap (as well as most Zizek), Heidegger, Cuomo, Kappeler, Pan, Chaloupka, Spanos/Imperialism, Foucault/Biopower and Luke. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">If you are not reading one of these kritiks know that I have read (a pretty decent amount of) K literature but do need clarifications if your argument is complex or different. Different kritiks that fall under this category are D&G (I do understand the argument, but am not in touch with the finer points of the debate), Hardt and Negri, Badiou, Baudrillard (I find this utterly not understandable, and, as one of my coaches said “if you think you understand it then you don’t understand Baudrillard), Zupanic, Bataille etc.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">When debating either kritiks that I am familiar with or ones that I am not you should make the debate as specific as possible; I find that kritik debates often devolve into vague representations links or generic topic debates and would appreciate it if you can show how the affirmative specifically is an example of ___. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ideologically, I do think the affirmative should get to weigh their aff, but am tech-oriented on the framework debate. Floating Pik’s are abusive. I do not understand why the negative can sever their reps from a DA but the aff can’t from their advantages.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Judge choice is an interesting argument but in a hypothetical instance that the affirmative reads 3 advantages, the negative k’s 2 and the aff says judge choice the negative should still weigh the comparative disadvantages of the 2 advantages vs. the advantage of the other 1.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">**Theory-** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">One conditional advocacy is usually not abusive. I think that ideological conditionality (1 CP and 1 K) is the best form. I can be persuaded that conditionality is bad for debate, especially if the negative reads more than 3 conditional advocacies. I feel that 3 conditional advocacies is playing with fire for the neg.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Reject the argument not the team applies to every theory argument except conditionality. Dropping subpoint 3- no neg fiat on the conditionality debate, or other similar cheap shot theory arguments are not a voting issue and I will give leniency to new answers.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">**Topicality-** <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The framework for evaluating topicality debates is an area where I lean towards competing interpretations. Affirmatives that are core of the topic often under-utilize precision combined with reasonability. I do not enjoy spec arguments.