McVea,+Patrick

Just for some background I debated Policy for Westside for 3 years until 2007. I ran a mix of critical and non-critical arguments and I have no real preference between the two. I have a very strong background in philosophy from a predominantly continental program so I have a good background for critical debate but I prefer it when debaters don’t assume I know all of the jargon. A quick 2-3 sentence plain language overview of any argument goes a long way with me for both critical and non critical arguments When voting I like to have the debaters clearly set forth the criteria that they want me to vote on within the round preferably before the last two speeches. . I will vote on any argument as long as it is well presented. I will vote on theory or topicality arguments if they are clear and well argued. Basically, I prefer rounds where the debate is clear, there is good clash and people make it easy for me to evaluate how to vote.