McFadden,+Matthew

matt mcfadden damien hs - 2017 ucla - 2021 - econ/neuroscience major matt.mcfadden.99@gmail.com - email chain - put me on it "knowledge enslaves us" -bataille


 * preface ** – i debated with tyler peltekci from 2013-2017 at damien hs. i've copied a lot of this from his judge philosophy. i was toc quarterfinalist (5th place), 2nd seed, and 6th speaker. i agree with a majority of his debate views – http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/peltekci%2c+tyler

"if you do not clearly say every syllable of every word, please strike me" -scott brown
 * reasons to strike me** – none... i don't think?


 * predispositions ** – research is one of the best parts of debate; tyler and i always took pride in having the best evidence. if you accurately describe your evidence as phenomenal, i will reward you with extra speaks in proportion to how good your cards are. if you oversell your sub-par cards, i will be thoroughly disappointed. not to say debating is in any way less significant, but if you have research of superb quality, it makes the debate much easier for you. regardless of my biases, __please__ just go for what __you__ are prepared to execute and have the research on; if you are good at __whatever__ you do, i will vote for you. truly, there are quite few things i will not vote for.

if you are understandably in a hurry, there are really only 2 things you need to take from this –

1 – do what you're good at 2 – do LINE BY LINE "i vote on dropped arguments that i don't believe" -ian beier


 * topicality ** – love it. please read a good amount of cards. if you've done the research to support a well-articulated t argument, i will be overjoyed to judge the debate. although i generally default to competing interpretations, after thinking about it a lot, reasonability can be a round-winning argument if the 2ar accurately executes and articulates why the neg interpretation is unpredictable and overly burdensome for affirmatives, which outweighs 2nr offense – this is especially persuasive if you have aff-specific cards in relation to the topic literature or legal question of the resolution. negatives that 1 – do thorough impact calculus external to ‘they explode limits – limits are good’ and 2 – give overwhelmingly extensive lists of the absurd affs their interp justifies <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">are crucial. limits is an internal link to the topic-specific expertise the resolutional question is designed to impart. i went for t-nsa at least 50% of 2nr's on the surveillance topic. i tried to make t-with a thing on the china topic.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">theory **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – can be tedious to resolve, but i'm intrigued. 1ar's do not extend this enough. 2ar's that do the impact comparison, turns case analysis, and offense/defense framing on theory as if it were a da are very enjoyable. if i was a 2a, i'd flip aff into outrounds just to go for condo – if you’re the best at theory, it’s as close to a no-risk option as you can get. i think community norms about theory are, to a certain degree, unjustified, and so i probably have a lower threshold for evaluating what constitutes a theory argument i would vote on. this doesn’t mean i think theory args like ‘aspec’ or ‘no neg fiat’ are particularly good ones, rather, the answer to them is not refusing to specify, but specifying solely for disads and justifying that specifying for cp’s is bad. conversely, if theory arguments aren't well-articulated and are overly blippy, i am fine with simply dismissing them.

must disclose judge prefs theory <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">– no, thank you. i am not sympathetic.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">kritiks **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – the most intricate debates or the most __mediocre__ debates – i mean this sincerely. if you are good at making a __real argument__, yes please. i read a good deal of heidegger and bataille literature – just beginning to branch out to baudrillard. however, if you enjoy flying to tournaments to repeat overly complicated slews of __meaningless__ words strung together as if they somehow interact with the 1ac, no thank you. sometimes, you just have to buckle down and go one off. i get it. specific link work with intricate turns case analysis and examples relating to the aff win debates. reading a new phenomenal critical theory card will make my day - ie if you have done the research to support your argument, let's go. the more generic k’s are, the less inclined i am to vote for you – i would much rather vote for a k of the aff’s specific mechanism which causes international scapegoating or hyper-militarization, for example, than i would the general explanation of the ahmed card i’ve given 25 times. if you are a team that goes for the k like a disad (techy, line-by-line, interacts with the case) i'll be happy to judge the debate; the inverse is also true.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">yes, please – <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">security <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">heidegger <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">bataille? *sometimes <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">neolib/cap <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">apoc k's <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">death k's <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">fiat k's <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">liberalism k's <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">links turn case <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">impact framing <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">specific links <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">framework

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">no, thanks – <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">k's about you as a person – seems to me to make debates a bit narcissistic, don't you think?

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">burke was a personal favorite senior year


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">cp **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – wonderful.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">counterplans with long texts – my favorite. overly exhaustive counterplans make it more likely the 2ac will mishandle it and reward techy 2n's. conversely, 2a's should read da's to different planks of the cp.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">pics – they're the best. 4 minutes of the 2nc dedicated to at:pdcp with competition args like 'zero nouns' is fantastic. HOWEVER – i quite agree with dheidt’s view that the over-proliferation of contrived counterplans devised to steal all aff offense with trivial net benefits poses negative educational implications for debate. meaning – pics should be substantively different than the aff (do less) and have a solvency advocate.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">process cp's – do you have a solvency advocate in the context of the aff? if not, you're probably cheating. counterplans that do all of the aff or use the aff’s agent to adjust the process by which implementation occurs will be hard to win in front of me if the aff is competent.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">states cp <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">– teams overestimate the impact of their solvency deficits and underestimate the efficacy of theory as an answer. aff – please go for theory.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">judge kick – i'm not ideologically opposed but will not default to it.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">da **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – yes, please. 80% of my china topic 2nr's were deterrence/assurance da. 7-card 1nc shells win debates.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">well-researched link evidence works wonders. taking a minute of the 2nr to detail turns case analysis puts you in a great position.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">if you don't have a da, you don't have a da. 1% risk calculus won't make your link for you.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">"people should impact turn.... everything" -ian beier
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">impact turn **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – my favorite 2nr i ever gave was on china war good. sometimes, this is the strategy. please go for these if your evidence is recent and of high quality. doing thorough comparison between the data and qualifications of your cards versus theirs is how these debates are won.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">policy favorites: china war good, red spread, d-dev <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">critical favorites: china war good, red spread, heg good, tech thought good


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">neg v. k affs **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – if you're neg and don't win these debates, you're the exception. these are the hardest 2nr's, so i'm willing to grant some leeway.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">presumption – make this argument. their poem didn’t solve anything.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">framework – yes. compare your impacts at the internal link level and do intricate turns case analysis. i enjoy institutional engagement arguments vs identity affs and truth testing/fairness against more abstract affs.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">the k – though i think it is an admirable strategy, unless you have hyper-specific evidence about the aff or its mechanism, you are highly susceptible to the perm. k affs aren’t concrete so they are designed to get lots of leeway in order to extravagantly explain the aff as the alt.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">heg good – is there a link?

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">topic da – why not make them defend the link?

"no, you don't have to have a plan" -jerry wang "performance is fine if you make an argument" -bricker
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">k affs – **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">mixed feelings. i am usually inclined to think your aff does nothing to resolve a real impact; convincing me otherwise is important.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">aff v. the k **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – you have an aff; that's all you have to defend. don't get sucked into their vacuous link arguments about the metaphysically fascist nature of your ontological conception of macropolitics.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">aff - <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">framework – you get to weigh the aff – justify your epistemology/ontology <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">case outweighs – util <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">impact turn – heg is good (or whatever is most compatible with your aff) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">defense to their impacts and links <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">alt answers

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">affs lose to the k when they don't answer offense that is embedded in link arguments, lose the framework debate, letting them get away with broad and absurd generalizations, and going for too much.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2ar's that buckle down with 'we get to weigh our aff', 'the alt and the aff are mutually exclusive', impact calc/framing, impact and internal link defense, and answers to k bombs should usually win.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">additional notes **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> –

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">"a puppet is free as long as he loves his strings" -sam harris
 * free will** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">– false.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">truth o/w tech **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – this isn't true; which means i could be technically persuaded that it is...? i am increasingly doubtful of the truth value of any claim; there are merely arguments on both sides. which i find more persuasive is dependent on you.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">it's a paradox: <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">1 – you had to technically win that i should evaluate truth before tech <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2 – truthfully, tech comes first

"truth has only one face: that of a violent contradiction" -bataille <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">"truth > tech" -scott brown


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">execution **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – evidence quality doesn't replace the necessity of good debating. but i really do love good evidence.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">the aff **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">– straight turn da's, exploit double-turns, have tricky affs, and write my ballot for me with the 2ar.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">the neg **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – if the 1nc just throws bad options around to see what gets under-covered, you will most likely lose. if the 1nc is 1-off da or pic, and you're ready to throw down on china being evil, more speaks. depth over breadth in terms of strategy.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">zero risk – **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">it’s not possible strictly in the sense of ‘zero risk’, because there is inherently a possibility of all events but it __is__ possible to diminish the risk of an advantage or da to such a degree that it is not sufficiently significant to overcome from the noise of the status quo. i think the new fettweis card is pretty devastating impact defense. lots of neg da's are utterly ridiculous.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">"be snarky if you want" -grace kuang
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">cx **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">– if their cards are awful, or their da is incoherent, pointing it out is fun. that being said, don’t get upset if i laugh at your answer to a cross-ex question or make very expressive faces – can’t help it. being strategic in the rhetorical method you use to get the other team to say what you want, then referencing their answers in speeches to warrant arguments is persuasive and gets you additional speaks if what they said is truly applicable.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">judges/people i admire - **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> dheidt, bricker, tallungan, khirn, tyler peltekci, dan bannister, kristen lowe, spurlock, matt munday, tucker carlson, forslund, scott brown.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">prep – **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">won’t count email for it within the bounds of what’s reasonable. being efficient will make me happier with you – ie have the 1nr emailed out before 2nc cross-ex is over.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">bad args **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">– 'racism/sexism good' args are obviously non-starters. i won't immediately dismiss 'death good' but if this is really the position you're in, you have more significant problems than my judging preferences.