McCormick,+Sean

I did debate for 3 years at Strake Jesuit in Houston Texas. I qualled to TOC as a junior and as a senior. My senior year I won a few tournaments, got nine bids, and I got to Octas of TOC.

__**Theory**__: I ran a lot of theory as a debater, I'll probably be pretty good at adjudicating a theory debate. That being said, if it's fringe theory you need have some ethos and sell the stupid abuse; if it's a multi-planked interp and you're claiming that the abuse is from all the plank's being run in tandem with one another then you need to justify an abuse story based on each plank being bad when ran together - not just that each plank independently is a bad thing - otherwise a counter-interp that just justifies each plank being good is in fact responsive; if at the end of the theory debate there are multiple different preclusive weighing arguments (for example: "Ground is the most important standard because of [x] but also predictability is the most important standard because of [y]") and none of them are compared then I'll probably doc your speaks.

__**K's**__: I ran a lot of K's as a debater, I'll probably be decent at adjudicating a K debate. Few things: 1. Don't say why one form of oppression is __worse__ than another form of oppression. You can say it's more educational to talk about another kind of oppression or that it's better for solving general oppression to spec to one group but impact magnitude weighing for kritical arguments is often Oppression Olympics which you want to avoid doing. 2. Floating PICs are fine but in the 1N you need to at least hint at the K's becoming a PIC in the 2N or I won't evaluate it. Especially if you're sketchy on if it's a PIC or not in CX.

__**Framework**__: I never did framework debate. I understand what most frameworks say, I conceptually understand how to debate a framework and how framework arguments work, but I'm definitely not going to be great at adjudicating a dense framework debate.

__**High Theory**__: I never ran these types of positions nor did I debate them much; however, I understand the parts of Deleuze and Baudrillard that people use to justify their frameworks in debate. Two things: 1. If you just throw around a ton of Deleuze buzz words to confuse people, your speaks are going to be bad. 2. Shifting a little on what offense links to the framework isn't good but I'll buy a re-contextualization of the framework within reason. That being said, I find that __most__ debaters who read High Theory positions either shift in the 1ar / 1nr on how offense works under their standard or avoid the question of how to link offense into their standard in CX; if you do either of these things I'll give your opponent a lot of credence on turns and weighing since their misunderstanding of the framework is - in my opinion - partially your fault.

__**Extra**__: 1. If you're hitting someone a lot worse than you don't debate lay and don't slow down to conversation speed but don't use tech tricks and don't spread 100%. Use the round as an opportunity to introduce them to National debate but don't scare them off from the activity by being overly tech. 2. Make overviews. They take 20 seconds, they make the round clear if done correctly, and they can help make it seem like you're winning even if you're not. 3. I'm fine with super short extensions if it's conceded. For example, if an entire aff is conceded if you just say "Extend the aff" that's enough for me. If it's an argument that you're interacting with another argument (For example: A framing card in your conceded aff being used to take out a K alternative or something) then quickly reexplain the argument's claim and warrant when you're impacting it.

If you want good speaks, use CX better. What I mean by that is: ask clarification questions, intimidate but don't bully your opponent into concessions, and somewhat belittle their arguments by how you phrase your questions. Often debaters who are good at CX are good at debate, if you get better at using CX to the fullest you'll likely win more rounds and you'll definitely get better speaks.

__**If you read nothing else, read this**__: 1. Weigh between arguments. If there is a turn on the aff contention, you need to weigh it against the aff contention. If there is a turn on a theory standard, you need to weigh against the opposing offense on that theory standard. If there is theory and a K, you need to weigh between if theory comes first or K comes first. Weigh between arguments. 2. Slow down on tags and author names.