McCarthy,+Max

 **Max McCarthy** Last Updated: April 2014 Introduction | Short Version | Arguments I Won’t Evaluate | Negotiable Preferences | Non-Negotiable Preferences | Speaker Points | After the Round **SUMMER UPDATE** My flowing skills are a bit rusty and I have no familiarity with the SNFI topic. Bear this in mind.  **INTRODUCTION**  I debated for Mountain View High School (CA) on local and national circuits for four years, qualifying to TOC 2012 my senior year. I’m conflicted from Mountain View, Los Altos, and Monta Vista. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to find me at the tournament, ask before the round, or email me at maxmccarthy [at] comcast [dot] net. I think far too many judges purport to be completely //tabula rasa// (“blank slate”) and, though they’re “open to whatever arguments you want to run,” end up arbitrarily ignoring or intervening for certain arguments based on subconscious or hidden preferences. This paradigm is my attempt to make my preferences explicit and to provide a list of arguments that (often for no reason but my own prejudices) I will not evaluate. Consequently, I probably wrote way too much for you to process right before a debate round, so I’d recommend reading the SparkNotes version of my paradigm and then looking at the sections you have specific questions about.

 **SHORT VERSION**  Absent any arguments made by debaters, I tentatively default to the best justifications paradigm, which functions similarly to truth-testing except I consider the quality of justification as well as its strength of link (the aff’s burden being to justify accepting the resolution as true, and the neg’s to justify accepting it as false). Other paradigms are fine, as are speed, topicality and theory, RVI’s, meta-ethics, good weighing, and not overly technical policy-style arguments. Good cross-ex and argument comparison will increase your speaks, and sloppy and sketchy debate or lack of clarity will lower them. Please come to the round on-time and preflowed, be courteous and honest, and have fun!

 **ARGUMENTS I WILL NOT EVALUATE**  The following, in no specific order, are arguments I will not evaluate (and your speaks may suffer):
 * arguments that are obviously false or lacking a claim, warrant, or impact,
 * arguments I do not understand as a result of poor clarity or explanation,
 * miscut, misrepresented, or fabricated evidence,
 * theory arguments linking to out-of-round practices, including disclosure theory,
 * arguments that fairness is entirely unimportant (go for drop the arg instead),
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">micropolitical cases without a specific in-round link to your opponent’s behavior or language (don’t hold people responsible for problems they didn’t cause/perpetuate), and
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">ad-hominem, rude, or discriminatory arguments – for these, I reserve the right to drop you.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> **NEGOTIABLE PREFERENCES** Paradigms | Framework | Policy Arguments | Theory <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> This section comprises my default paradigm, i.e. the way I’ll evaluate the round if no arguments are made in support of alternate methods of evaluation. Contesting these preferences won’t affect my decision unless you and your opponent disagree on any of the issues stated below and don’t win reasons for a different calculus.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> **Paradigms** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;">Absent any arguments made by debaters (this just constitutes my default), I use the best justification paradigm (BJP), proposed by Eric Palmer in 2008’s “Truth, Justification, and Comparison.” The aff’s burden is to justify accepting the resolution as true, and the neg’s burden is to justify accepting it as false. On this view, all arguments count as evidence in favor of one side of the resolution. Neither debater has an absolute burden of proof, but both have a comparative one – whichever debater produces the more cogent set of arguments has produced the best justification. <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; padding-left: 20px; text-indent: 3em;">This paradigm rewards debaters who make developed arguments and comparative weighing of competing extensions. For example, if the aff drops a 5-second blip from the NC that is asserted to come pre-standards, under a truth testing paradigm the neg would automatically win with that argument. However, under BJP that pre-standards argument only functions as some amount of evidence to believe the resolution is false, and if the aff extends a preponderance of better (i.e. not blippy) arguments then that would demonstrate there is an overwhelming likelihood that the resolution is in fact true, then the aff would win. This means that I will vote on any pre-standards issue (as with any argument) provided it is developed and extended well enough. <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; padding-left: 20px; text-indent: 3em;"> I am of course open to other paradigms of evaluation, particularly if both debaters agree (or appear to agree). I’m fine with standard truth-testing as well as comparing worlds. One caveat: I think comparing worlds prematurely assumes some sort of ends-based calculus on a paradigmatic level by appealing to the notion of a more desirable world – even before the framework debate is resolved. If you want to have a util debate, comparing worlds is totally fine, but this caveat does mean you’ll have a hard time winning “Truth-testing bad” against a non-consequentialist AC, unless that AC is abusive for other reasons than not being ends-based.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> **Framework** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> I very much prefer to see coherent, logical argumentation on the framework level – developed and nuanced standards warrants and answers will be rewarded, not necessarily meaning you need meta-ethics, although it might be advantageous given that I’m pretty familiar with that literature. Bonus points for successfully justifying and defending ethical theories that aren’t strictly utilitarianism or deontology, or for justifying util/deont in an unconventional (yet philosophically coherent) manner. <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; padding-left: 20px; text-indent: 3em;"> I won’t penalize you if you prefer to spend less time on the framework debate in order to better develop substance, but make sure you can defend your standard. Making appeals to ontology or epistemology to warrant your standard better be backed up by some fantastic reasons why those come before meta-ethics or your opponent’s arguments, otherwise I’ll just consider them to be standards justifications that have fancy words attached. I don’t think policymaking or “extinction outweighs” are good justifications for utilitarianism.

**<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Policy Arguments and Critiques ** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> I don’t have any objections to policy-esque arguments; disads, plans, and counterplans are fine. The latter two may be abusive if they make use of utopian fiat or narrow the debate to the point where your opponent has little ground – but exactly where that point is should be resolved by theory, not my inclinations. I’m not highly familiar with all the policy jargon associated with these positions, so your best bet is to be substantively rather than technically responsive. <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; padding-left: 20px; text-indent: 3em;"> Re critiques, I am not familiar with the literature, especially dense post-modern/continental philosophy (make of that what you will). Failure to adequately explain your position in cross-ex and extensions will hurt your speaks. K’s should have alternatives that are competitive with the AC. I probably won’t know why your opponent’s ten analytic no-link arguments fail to respond to the nuances of your impeccably-constructed K, so the onus is on you to explain clearly. If I’m giving you a puzzled look, you’re not explaining well enough.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> **Theory (a.k.a. A Necessary Evil)** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> I, like many judges, find unnecessary theory debates to be frustrating. To check back theory being used merely as a strategic tool, I default to a reasonability paradigm and accept well-justified RVI’s (better justified in terms of reciprocity than time-skew; this also means I’m not very keen on arguments that dictate only one side should have access to the RVI). However, if you want me to vote off an RVI, you must be winning offensive reasons why your counter-interpretation is more reasonable/better – I won’t vote off terminal defense so “I meet” RVI’s aren’t sufficient. I will be upset if you run multiple theory shells except in cases of serious abuse, and will lower your speaks if the theory debate becomes bogged-down as a result of multiple/unnecessary shells. Potential abuse is also an uphill battle – demonstrate the abuse (e.g. the unique loss of ground or why their arguments are uniquely unpredictable) and it becomes much easier for you to win theory. Last, but definitely not least, make sure you weigh between standards and voters so I don’t have to weigh for you. <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; padding-left: 20px; text-indent: 3em;"> Here are some theory arguments that are very winnable in front of me (but that are not always won): multiple standards bad, multiple conditional counterplans bad, multiple pre-standard issues bad, standards requiring non-falsifiable offense bad (i.e. arguments where one side is definitionally or empirically true; this would include standards like democracy), both sides must have access to an RVI, and miscut evidence bad. //<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; padding-left: 20px; text-indent: 3em;">More about theory below. //

<span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> **NON-NEGOTIABLE PREFERENCES** Standards and Argument Function | Theory | Weighing | Evidence Ethics <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;">In addition to the list of arguments I will not evaluate, ignoring these preferences could lower your speaker points, lose you the round, or cause death-by-angry-Max-berating-you-after-the-round. You have been warned.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> **Standards and Argument Function** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> You must present to me some form of standard that acts as the link between the impacts you garner and my endorsing them as a judge. A traditional value/criterion model is fine for this, or a burden you place on your opponent, or a syllogism. What I do not want to see are arguments that have no explicit function or whose function is not explained. (For example, simply saying an argument functions pre-standards does not make it pre-standards. Explain why this links to the truth of the resolution or makes it a tautology. Also, turns and pre-standards arguments must be labeled as such when they are originally presented.)

<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> **Theory, Part 2** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;">One place doing the above is crucial is the theory debate. This means I want to see the four parts of your shell (interp/violation/standards and internal links/voter) that explicitly justify why the violation is sufficient to reject arguments or drop your opponent. Fairness is at least a reason to drop the abusive argument, so your best line of defense against a fairness voter is to win “drop the arg, not the debater” rather than say fairness is not important at all. I’m undecided about the role of education in theory debates – it might be anything from irrelevant to a reason to drop the debater. //<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; padding-left: 20px; text-indent: 3em;">More about theory above. //

<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> **Weighing** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;">You absolutely must weigh/compare impacts if both you and your opponent are linking in to the same standard. This means doing more than just using buzzwords and saying, “My impact is bigger so I outweigh on magnitude!” I recognize that weighing in the NC/1AR is difficult and that the aff is already crunched for time, so I’m lenient towards weighing in later speeches and towards under-developed 2AR weighing. But good, explicit, developed weighing will be rewarded. (While I’m nit-picking about weighing, I’d also like to make a distinction between strength of link and probability. Extending an argument that is conceded does win you the strength-of-link debate, but that absolutely does not guarantee a 100% probability of your impact occurring, especially if the rhetoric of your cards is full of maybe’s and might’s.)

<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> **Evidence Ethics** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;">Please have the full text of the paragraphs you cut and the citation for each card available to your opponent in a reasonable amount of time. Evidence ethics are very important in an academic activity: make sure you aren’t fabricating evidence, misconstruing the author’s intention using [brackets], cutting a “straw man,” or using ellipses without having the full text. I have no problem dropping debaters on miscut evidence bad theory, and I will not evaluate evidence that is intentionally misconstrued or miscut.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> **SPEAKER POINTS** How to Get Good Speaks | Presentation and Clarity <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> **How to Get Good Speaks** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;">I consider quality of argumentation (including its intellectual rigor), quality of clash, strategic acumen, cross-examination, and clarity. Make sure you’re engaging your opponent’s arguments and being comparative both on the framework and offense level. Positions that demonstrate careful construction and strategic vision will be rewarded, but this doesn’t exclude good stock cases. Blippy, dishonest, or evasive strategies or strategies that rely on simply “out-teching” your opponent (especially if your opponent is less experienced than you are) will lose you speaks. Big-picture debate and prioritizing layers of the debate, especially in later rebuttals, is much better for good speaks than blazing through the line-by-line and re-extending 50 arguments. I like funny debates/debaters, but there’s a line between genuine humor and being unfunny and/or an asshole because you’re trying too hard. Don’t cross it.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> **Presentation and Clarity** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;">I have no trouble flowing speed, but I do have trouble flowing disorganized and unclear debaters. This means that you shouldn’t start at 400 wpm right when you start your timer; gradually work up to your blazing-fast speed. But please, please, //please// slow down or pause on signposting, numbering, tags, author names, lists of analytics, theory interps, and between sections of your case and layers of the debate. Failure to do this get you no higher than 27 speaks. I will say “clear” twice, and after that I will put the same amount of effort into flowing as you do into being clear.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> **AFTER THE ROUND** <span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;">Feel free to question me about my decision after the round but know that I will not (and cannot) change my mind, nor will I tolerate rudeness. If there is an issue you feel was not appropriately evaluated, it is likely because of a communication failure on your part. I prefer not to disclose speaker points immediately; come find me later if you absolutely must know.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 0em; text-indent: 3em;"> Good luck, and have fun!