McGranahan,+Jameson

Jameson McGranahan 4 Years debating for Shawnee Mission East Freshman debating for Emporia State University


 * SME** - This is my third time judging highschool varsity debate. I am a "college debater" but I am still new at judging, so I'd advise that you do not overestimate me as a judge.


 * Specific Issues:**


 * Extending Evidence** - I have a higher threshold for warranted arguments when extending evidence, i.e. plan improves the economy won’t cut it. This is mainly geared towards the 2A and 2N, whereas the 1AR has some leniency. Also, don’t assume that I flowed the cite of your cards, I prefer that you refer to cards by subpoints or numbers, as that allows me to focus on the tag and content while flowing.


 * Speed** – If you’re going to spread, you should understand that clarity is your responsibility. If I didn’t flow your impact card on your advantage because you were being unclear, that is not my fault. In order to help me best flow your speech, you should give subpoints for each card, or at a minimum, emphasize an “and” between cards. Differentiating tags and cards is important, but do not speak softly while reading the card content – I typically listen to the tag but only flow the content of the evidence. (Unless your tags have actual analysis in them, rather than just summary.)


 * Affs** – I believe that the aff should advocate for action within the limits of the resolution. This does not necessitate traditional policy action i.e. passing a bill, though you should at a minimum advocate for some form of action when it comes to policy formulation. This does not need to be textually explicit, so long as you prove current ocean policy is bad, you're golden. Also, be careful with role of the ballot arguments. You're probably making it almost impossible to be neg. Kinda like what the aff critiques, huh?


 * General Neg positions** – Counterplans should solve some portion of the aff. Disads should not be so generic that they link to every aff I can think of. Specificity is always a good thing, and as such offense on case is preferable to a 4th generic disad. Kritiks should have a legitimate link argument, links of omission are not convincing arguments.

+ I probably won't evaluate //floating// PIKs. If you’re going to PIK out of the aff, this really should be done in the 1NC or very explicitly in the block. + Be cautious reading high theory Ks. I don't know what the simulacrum is, I don't know a lot about the ubermensch etc. + I do not think that discourse should be critiqued. I believe that the words we choose are indicative of culture, rather than our personal ideologies. Of course, being overt about your opinions through expletive discourse can be damaging.
 * Kritiks **- Your kritik does not have an external impact. The alternative does not "solve" for capitalism or anthropocentrism etc. A "reject" alt is just the status quo, and I will treat it as such. These things considered, the most important analysis for your k is how it turns the case. If your kritik is just "FYI X-ism is bad" then the aff is probably still a good idea. __Contextualize your impacts__, tell me what the aff does that makes it worse than the squo, make it big picture. I.E. what is it about cleaning trash in the ocean that harvests and kills cows & pigs? Probably nothing. Tell me how the machinery kills dolphins and whales instead.


 * Theory/T** – I often find that these are the hardest arguments for me to flow, so if you read these arguments, I would highly recommend going slower, differentiating sub-points, and pausing when appropriate. I tend to evaluate these arguments more as disads, so offense on the impact level or the link level is welcome, and the negative should certainly take account for the uniqueness level of the debate. All things considered, I am typically more aff-leaning (or neg leaning for condo etc.) on these arguments if handled correctly. Absent a significant time investment throughout the entire debate, and clear impact uniqueness, these are not great strategies to go for because I will more than likely default to reasonability (which may be arbitrary, but the reverse is probably true as well).


 * Trolling / Satire** - These are personal favorites, but I understand it's not everyone's game. You will need a convincing framework argument before I vote down the aff for not specifying which pen they use. Alternatively, if both teams agree to a rap battle then I see nothing wrong with ditching the traditional debate format.


 * Speaker Points** - I will try to evaluate your speeches based on the content rather than the discourse, i.e. "bad" speakers with well thought out arguments will probably end up with higher speaks than a speaker who "sounds good" but isn't saying much substantive. I think that pre-round prep should be rewarded more than a speech that flows well.