Meagher,+Tom

SECTION 1: OVERALL REFLECTION ON THE TYPES OF DEBATES I LIKE AND WHY

I came up as a high school debater and coached at a high school when I was in college instead of actually debating, so many college debate people don't know me. I came from a region which hadn't competed on the national circuit and my partner and I were the first local team to go to the TOC. I have judged many high school policy debates over the past ten years. I've recently begun coaching and judging in the realm of college debate as well. I like judging debates and I'll do my best to give you a thoughtful decision and constructive feedback. I'm very comfortable judging any speed or style of debate.

Being a policy debater made a big difference in my life in terms of what I eventually came to study and to do with my life. My intellectual concerns center on decolonial thought and Africana philosophy. Teams that share these or related concerns will probably be more successful in front of me. I do agree that there are certain issues that present themselves as prior questions to determning the best course of action for the United States government to take. These issues are perhaps summed up in as those three areas that Lewis Gordon contends tend to be the focus of African Diasporic philosophy: "(1) philosophical anthropology, (2) social transformation and freedom, and (3) the metacritique of reason." This is to say that all else being equal I do strongly prefer debaters that have something to say about (1) What it means to be a human (and what it means to be a debater), (2) How changes in our world ought to be pursued (from the perspective of those whose freedom is significantly constrained, rather than the perspective of those whose freedom is the telos of existing arrangements), and (3) What it means to engage in communication and argument. I don't take it upon myself to dictate that these concerns be utmost to the debaters I judge. I have no problem judging a 'good old-fashioned policy debate' between two teams focused on concerns within that realm. I have judged about three such debates for every one 'non-traditional' debate I've had the pleasure of adjudicating, and don't object to this being the case. But if you want me to vote for you, particularly in those sorts of debates repugnantly termed "clash of civilizations" debates, taking these concerns into account by focusing your arguments on contestations within these realms - as opposed to concerns about why it is good to devote the activity solely to debating the efficacy of US action - will improve your ability to win and receive good speaker points substantially.

As a debater I was successful on the technical side of things, but I do wish I had devoted more rounds to exploring personal experience and performative approaches. I tend to be sympathetic to teams that pursue these approaches, though not to the point of discounting the other team's arguments. I like to see debates where the neg arguments engage the content of the 1ac and try to compete on that level to a significant degree. I think that when one team discusses personal experience in a significant way, the other team is missing out, both pedagogically and argumentatively, by not responding in kind. Teams that seek to reject the other team's performative approach and not embrace the performative elements of their own debating won't do as well in front of me as those that rise to the challenge. By performative, I am merely building upon the idiom most used in discussions of the activity (though the term is one wrought with difficulties and paradoxes like its cousin, the kritik/K) to describe the approach of debaters who prioritize persuading me by what they do in communicating their arguments more so than in merely the (artificially-separated-from-form) content of their arguments alone. In parallel to this, though, teams that reject the aff's policy approach by philosophy/theory alone without an engagement at the level of why the aff's policy proposal might be a bad idea won't do as well in front of me as teams that integrate attacks on the case into their K. I am likely to ultimately vote negative in a debate where the aff still might be a good idea when the neg presents a better idea, but clashing at the level of how the aff's idea might fail - even if not guaranteeing the aff's failure in the way a conceded extinction DA with 100% probability would - remains an effective way to show the relative desirability of the neg's position.

Passion, humor, and thoughtfulness are things I find pretty important in debating successfully. Debaters who persuasively convey, with precision and emphasis, the key reasons why they should win the debate will tend to have higher speaks and an easier road to winning my ballot, and this becomes more acute in the 2nc and the rebuttals. Debaters whose arguments demonstrate they've reflected on the arguments of both sides, rather than reiterating their main points and hoping it will all work out, are much more likely to impress me. I do appreciate funny debaters and debates where people are enjoying themselves and employing some form of mutual respect as opposed to indifference or antagonism.

These are the major concerns that shape how I judge a debate. Sections 2 & 3 will provide more specific notes on how I like to see certain things done. Be forewarned that a) these sections are not extremely important for you to read before I judge your debate, so you can skip ahead to your prep work if that seems a more reasonable priority, and b) I have attempted to lay them out so you can jump around, so some of the statements are redundant with things said in other parts of this paradigm.

SECTION 2: REFERENCE NOTES ON MAJOR ISSUES

(Speed) No problems keeping up, though slowing down to persuasively emphasize what you are winning is a good thing to do. No problems with teams who want the debate to be slower, and will tend to give them the sort of leeway they require. If you're the faster of the two teams I certainly don't mind you using your speed to win the debate but if you can be flexible in that regard to improve the overall quality of the round your speaks will probably reflect that positively.

(K vs. Policy, Neg Strats) The debates I enjoy the most tend to be those where both teams have some sort of sustained engagement with critical theory(/ies), but this is not a precondition for the debate being good in my eyes. The neg strategies I like the most tend to be those that engage what the 1ac said. If one side initiates a relatively more performative approach to the debate, I will tend to view both teams through a performative lens. I do enjoy good policy debates. I also enjoy good critical arguments. I also enjoy good performance based debates. I think the best negative strategies always include some form of disadvantage, case turn, and case defense, though the sources for and articulations of these can venture well outside the mainstream. You might be able to win on an argument that discourse unrelated to the policy at hand should be rejected, but it will always help you to contextualize your criticism by talking about how it would manifest in the imagined world of the plan. I am also sympathetic to aff arguments that negative performative contradictions cut against the neg's alternative solvency and bolster the ability of a permutation to solve the neg's alternative.

(Plan Focus) I think that negative ground in debates should be inclusive of a variety of elements of the aff, not solely the plan text. If you feel otherwise, pref me lower. Then again, affs that can defend why only the plan text is salient will often win in front of me because their arguments are better on that question, so you might want to pref me higher than others who are more inclined to disregard those arguments.

(Orientation to Issues and Literature) I do an awful lot of reading that is historical and philosophical; teams who are over-reliant on evidence whose epistemology they cannot defend might not do as well in front of me. Teams with a strong knowledge of epistemological dynamics who can utilize that knowledge in the debate will tend to do better in front of me. I am enthusiastic about argumentation that critically addresses systems of power relating to coloniality, racism, gender, and sexuality. I am knowledgeable about many of the major currents in philosophy, particularly existential philosophy, post-structuralism, and dialectical analysis. If you prefer judges who tend to ignore these sorts of issues, you probably should not pref me highly.

(Post-Round Work) I read evidence on parts of the debate that are close and on parts of the debate where the 2nr and/or 2ar extensions are citation-heavy where the specific warrants in the cards will impact how. I will tend to read un-highlighted parts of the card to provide feedback to the debaters and occasionally in order to make it possible to interpret the part that is underlined. If you want a judge to do all the work for you, I'm not the one for you. If you want a judge who will help you get by exclusively on tag-line extensions and under-highlighted and/or poor evidence, I'm not the one for you either.

(T) I enjoy topicality debates. I tend to be neg leaning on questions of predictability and ground and aff leaning on questions of limits. If you lose topic-implied ground in the debate and their interpretation makes it hard to predict crucial elements of the aff, you can feel pretty safe about going for T in the 2nr. If you do a good job of defending why your counter-interpretation causes good debates in a predictable way, I'll probably be willing to vote aff even if you make the neg research more cases.

(Framework) Non-traditional affs are neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad; the traditions themselves are historically shaped and have changed frequently. I'll vote neg on theory arguments if they're won, but winning these arguments on either side requires a philosophical engagement with substantive ideas. If there's a problem with the logic of the topic that is articulated by the aff, and they win that debate is a good space to try to shape our education in order to address that problem, I'll be willing to vote aff. You are better off making a topicality argument about the specific mechanisms in the topic, other than USFG/Resolved, that the aff's critical approach doesn't allow the neg to deal with, rather than making a generic USFG framework argument. I have heard the state action good/bad debate plenty of times and am not necessarily interested in hearing it much more, though if it's all you've got and you execute it perfectly I'll vote for it. You're better served addressing the substance of the aff and using T arguments about what other mechanisms in the topic mean or imply (i.e., financial incentives and restrictions on the Energy Production topic or infrastructure investment on the Transportation topic) in order to argue that the aff's non-USFG-centric approach hurts your ability to negate because of the mechanisms for exploration it uses rather than because the non-USFG focus itself is bad for debate.

(CP Theory) I sometimes enjoy counterplan theory debates, but rarely find PIC's or conditionality to be abusive, and am disinclined to vote negative because a 2ac argument was abusive. I enjoy theory more when arguments are substantial. If you like making well-thought out theory arguments in the 2ac and devoting significant time to winning them in the 1ar, I'm a good judge for you. If you like blowing off theory arguments on the neg I'm not a good judge for you.

SECTION 3: REFERENCE NOTES ON TECHNICAL AND IDIOSYNCRATIC ISSUES

-Arbitrary "counter-interpretations" annoy me. The worst is "Only our case is topical." I'll only vote on that one if the 2ac warrants it and the neg block doesn't substantively answer it. "Their interpretation plus our case" is very nearly as bad. On T, define and interpret the words in the topic. On debate theory debates, arbitrary counter-interps are more reasonable and necessary but still not desirable. If the neg reads three conditional counterplans and two conditional critiques, I'm not super inclined to buy your "they get three condo CP's + ONE condo K" or "2 condo CP's + 2 condo K" counter-interps. Affs should probably either defend that unconditional neg positions are good, that the neg only gets one conditional position to read, or that the neg must make a (non-artificially) competitive position in the 1nc dispositional so the aff gets to turn it. I am kind of a fan of the 1nc having a dispositional CP or dispositional critique and still getting to read other conditional positions since the aff can straight turn the one dispo position to solve the skew arguments. This entails, though, that the dispositional position be something with a clear link to ground staked out in the 1ac with a net benefit that is not along the lines of "plan plus."

-Artificially competitive neg positions annoy me. Plan plus CP's are no fun to watch. Floating PIK's where the neg's author would disagree with the aff but the neg doesn't want to have to defend that the plan's a bad idea are no fun to watch. Dig in your heels on the neg and debate something substantive. PIC's that exclude an actual component of the plan are pretty good for debate. Critiques of aff discourse that don't require me to conclude that the aff plan is bad but that show that it might be bad because the aff's method or discourse or evidence depend on flawed assumptions are pretty good for debate. Defending status quo on plan action is good for debate.

-The less Eurocentric, or normatively white/masculine/heterosexual/wealthy your assumptions are, the more likely they are to persuade me. The specificity of your scenarios on the Hegemony debate is not likely to overwhelm your opponent's claim that your authors collectively are miseducated.

-Fast debate is probably good enough that there's no point in me being a crusader for slower debate. Still, team's that emphasize key points are good, and that may tend to involve slowing the debate down on crucial points. Also, structured 2ac arguments are more likely to help you win than a laundry list of blippy arguments. I'll do more work for affs whose 2ac arguments have a coherent structure than those who merely expect me to get every argument, no matter how long or warranted, on my flow accurately. The 2ac on off-case positions and the 1nc on case will tend to dictate how I flow the debate, so emphasize structure in preparing those parts of the debate. An emphasis on structure includes having numbers and subpoints that go in order.

-Aff predictability of neg arguments is rarely a compelling standard. If I were aff I would predict that any discourse I use in the 1ac might be critiqued by the neg. If I were aff I would predict that the neg might run a PIC that excludes part of the plan, including more abstract parts like the immediacy and stability of its implementation. That is to say, I would predict arguments like Referenda, Consult, Sunsets, Conditions, Delay. That being said, if you make an argument that a type of CP or K is bad for debate and the neg shouldn't go for it because they deny the aff access to predictable ground, I'm happy to vote aff on the theory debate. Failure to predict a neg position isn't a reason to reject it, but the position itself denying the aff the ability to generate predictable offense is. If the timeframe of your aff can't outweigh the net benefit to a Consult CP, then you should probably research impact turns to the net benefits of consult counterplans.

-I like strategies that aim to demonstrate abuse on theoretical positions, which generally speaking means that if you run a T argument in the 1nc it will be more compelling if the 2ac answers on a different position demonstrate how the plan(/advocacy) text shifts the terrain of the debate in such a way that arguments you can reasonably expect to win on are kept at bay. Likewise, if a counterplan is abusive, deploy the arguments that are structurally coupled with your 2ac abuse argument.

-If your cross-x questioning gives you great ground, try taking it. It is exhausting to see 3-4 rounds in a tournament where the 1ac says terrorism, the cross-x of the 1ac clearly establishes that the terrorism discourse is impossible to define but overtly Islamophobic, and then the 1nc reads a very generic criticism and terror talk is never fleshed out. The more you can pull out the most relevant argument, the better.