McCormick,+Drew


 * Background **

Conflicts- Strake Jesuit.

High school:

Competed in LD for 4 years.

Qualified to TOC junior and senior year.

I was somewhat successful my junior and senior year. I think I have about as much experience in debate as anyone else, but judging experience is pretty much just from the camps I taught at this summer.

Post-High school: Pretty much out of the activity except for looking at Strake's dropbox.


 * Paradigm- **


 * Things I dont Like- **

1. framework dumps with no interaction, if you start reading a marginally responsive dump instead of just making 2 good analytics you'll lose speaks. 2. Make real framework arguments, i get that blips are strategic now but I don't want to hear your badly worded interpretation of what Velleman actually says. 3.Stop stealing prep/CX.

I think excessive paradigms are unnecessary because you either win a round or lose it, my opinion doesn’t *usually* matter. I have a couple of opinions about certain things, but I think any person who believes they lost because of “paradigmatic differences” means either they are wrong or the judge is wrong.

Opinions-

1. I used to hate debating the larp scenarios but genuinely enjoy judging them because they’re so ridiculous that I just like listening to cards cut from page 10 of google, or some blog. So go ahead and read your positions.

2. I’ll vote for the new (I think stupid) strategies of 20 paragraph theory shells and spikes, however, be clear. Although my go to strategy as a debater was just to say “this is stupid, ignore it judge”, I found that I never listened to that. So if you pref me assuming that I’ll judge like I debated, it’ll be a little bit different.

3. Speaking to the end of #2, I like listening to people who are snarky, sarcastic, critical, marginally aggressive, and funny. However, if you aren’t funny or any of the things I listed, don’t try to be. I’d prefer you to be a serious debater.

Caveat- if the person isn’t as good as you, I don’t care about your humor. The round is going to be boring if its very clear that you’re going to win, deal with it. You being sarcastic and rude to the novice won’t make me laugh.

4. Theory Go for it, read 20 theory shells, do the strategies I would whine about. If you win them, you win. However, I’m very receptive to RVI’s. I won’t assume this whole “Competing interps means RVI” but if you justify it I’ll vote for it.

In RVI or Competing interps v reasonability dumps, comparison and weighing will win it. when theres defense flying around a single argument that says why one justification precludes the others makes my life easier.

I can’t think of any other controversial issues, but just ask before the round.

Lastly some general things- - i won't call cards - extensions should be complete, claim warrant and impact. more than 5 words please.

-i really have no idea how 95% of the unwarranted nonsense we call permissibility manes "skep goes your way." i will probably assume it for you but if you want good speaks, please articulate how that analogy about a slice of cake means i vote negative on that recycled skep card.

-critical arguments are fun to write and read for some folks cause they don't have to respond to anything and get to be hipsters in an already hipster debate community but you still need a judge to vote for you. 10 dropped agamben cards make for a fun round for you, but it doesn't mean i'll vote for you if i have no idea what any of them say.

- i enjoy CX more than probably anyone else like i said though, if you're not funny, don't try to be. just make me enjoy your intelligent (or stupid but enjoyable) questions and i'll be happier.

Also, when you read a card in response to another card, very important that you explain why I prefer yours over your opponent’s. This also applies to definitions and other interpretational issues. Thus, especially as the negative, one must actually respond to specific warrants or preclude them with responses. I hate floating defense, always give some reason to prefer.

As a general rule, I don’t see myself intervening and saying “that’s a stupid argument, I won’t vote on it” cause that’s the point of the debate round.

Ask me whatever before the round, if you think the round was really bad don't ask me for speaks because i'll tell you but feel bad, and then no one wins. Have fun, debate tournaments are exhausting and you should make the most of it while you got it.