McCluskey,+John

 A little about myself: I did LD at Davenport Central HS, Davenport, IA. I judged LD throughout my four years as an undergrad at the University of Iowa. I am currently assisting the LD team at Fenwick HS while I am also a graduate student at the University of Chicago.

ARGUMENT STRUCTURE:

 General Remarks: For me LD's greatest strength is its ability to move discussion beyond a pragmatic empirical consideration of the impacts or harms of the resolution into the arena of philosophy. I don't like point by point analyses of real world evidence but prefer to see the debate focus on the value and criterion. The case should present a coherent argument which attempts to solve for the stated value by means of the weighing mechanism. Cases which present arguments that seem to only incidentally consider the Value and Criterion or that treat these as parts of the case isolated from the contentions, miss the point of this philosophically-centered type of debate.

Theory: I don't mind theory arguments and I'd even go as far to say that I like interesting well articulated theories. However, debaters must clearly understand and articulate the theory they are using in-round. A priori arguments are also fine, but I will not vote for an application of theory which I find repugnant, unless that interpretation goes unanswered in-round.

Cards: I don't find extensions of cards a reason to vote one way or the other. While pragmatic evidence is a useful extension of philosophical arguments it does not and should not stand in for analysis. Debaters who ask me to vote on card extensions are likely to encounter a recalcitrant judge who wonders why other more substantive arguments were not made.

REBUTTALS AND VOTING ISSUES:

Speakers should clearly sign-post the route they plan to take when offering rebuttals. If I can't place a debater's arguments on the flow then my ability to impact those arguments is diminished.

I also like for debaters to present me with a final interpretation of the round during their last speech. An attempt at solving the major issues of the round through the value and criterion debate should be offered as a compelling argument to vote one way or the other. This does not mean that I like an overly simplified crystallization, but rather that during each speech and especially during the final rebuttals a coherent argument ought to be made that attempts to persuade me.

COMPORTMENT:

Debaters should be respectful of each other. If I find that one person is cheapening the debate with ad hominem attacks or is condescending to a competitor, I am very likely to include considerations of comportment in my ballot.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Speaker points will reflect fluency of speech and posture as well as the coherence of the arguments being presented. I like debaters to look at me and to stand for cross-ex. Spreading is ok, but as a judge I appreciate debaters who are able to make powerful arguments speaking at a slower pace. I am not a stenographer and there is a limit to what I can tolerate. If I miss some of the arguments in the spread because they were delivered too quickly, spreaders may lose whatever advantage such cases could give them.

Some final thoughts: I attempt to be as fair as possible. This means that I try not to bring personal biases into the debate with me, although I am human and require convincing if I am being told to accept a bizarre departure from the status quo.