McClung,+Charles

I debated for three years at Lincoln Northeast High School in Nebraska. I won the Nebraska Invitational Tournament (RIP) and state my senior year. I am currently the head coach at St. Louis Park High School in Minnesota.

As an LD judge, I maintain the following constraints on my decision-making paradigm:

--I cannot make decisions on anything other than what is said in the round. I like it when the debaters do the work. That means setting up an explicit weighing mechanism, as in a criterion/standard, a burden, or a logical syllogism - it's totally up to you. I try to intervene as little as possible, so whatever bizarre positions you want to run in front of me are probably OK.

--I presume that the resolution is a truth-statement unless someone justifies the comparative worldview approach. This is probably because (a) I was a philosophy student, (b) I don’t presume utilitarian calculation, and (c) that’s how I debated in high school.

--I do not presume AFF or NEG unless arguments are made about presumption. Whoever has the strongest link to or impact under the predominant standard gets my ballot.

--Speed is fine, but chances are your fastest is too fast for me. If you choose to go your fastest, my flow will likely be off; if my flow is off, I will be skeptical of your purported "extensions". I’ll yell clear during the speech if I do not understand you, but I don't want to say it more than a couple times. (After twice or thrice, look for nonverbal signs of confusion or frustration. I have a really good eyebrow raise, so my dissatisfaction should be obvious.)

--Extensions must be really clear in the rebuttals. That means reiterating all three parts of the argument: claim, warrant, and impact. I will not connect the dots for you. On that note, I don’t like hearing new links or impacts to the standard in the 1AR or after, unless that link or impact was prompted by an opponent’s argument in the preceding speech.

--I am ever so slightly sympathetic towards theory. I don't enjoy it when the round becomes entirely theoretical, but I understand that abuse happens. Although I don't like to vote on theory, I have been known to do so. If you are trying to win on theory in front of me, weigh between the relevant theory standards and arguments.

--Critical arguments are so, like, progressive, you know? But they’re still arguments. I will not evaluate critical arguments differently than other arguments. That means you must provide an explicit means of evaluating those arguments.

--To weigh is the way to win. Strength of link, time-frame, probability, magnitude, etc.

Speaks: Tell me a clear ballot story. And be funny!