McGougan,+Max

Max McGougan Saint George's School '17 maxmcgougan@gmail.com Beginning to realize how long it has been since I have debated. Try not to overwhelm me early in the tournament with facemelting speed and jargon! 1. Familiar with policy debate, debated in HS for four years.
 * Top level**

2. Not familiar with the topic - as the year progresses and I judge more this may change, but at the beginning of the season don't assume I know what secondary education even is.

3. Argue what you want. If you are convincing, I'll vote for you. Although I'd like to say I'm "tab", I do have some argumentative preferences. These aren't concrete, but may give you insight into what I prefer.


 * Arguments**

4. I value narrative/coherence of an argument very highly - if you have a relatively small **disad** but convincingly argue it, 9 times out of 10 I'll prefer it to a shoddily-built affirmative w/nuke war. Don't take this as license to phone-in some risk cards and hope I vote for it - I'd much prefer a solid paragraph of analytics tearing down the I/Ls of the arg. I (generally) prefer debates that center around the proximate vs. the structural claims, although don't neglect either.

5. On a more technical standpoint, I prefer the link/UQ portions of the debate for disadvantages - particularly if you just non-UQ/turn them. Don't get too bogged down on turns the aff or whatever if both impacts are nuke war - it makes little sense to litigate who has the worst nuke war without winning any risk of yours, or decreasing the risk of theirs. I still do enjoy debates that center around impact turns and whatnot.

6. Ambigious on **kritiks**. That's to say, if you debate it like a disad because it super links to the Cap K, spewing out impacts at 300wpm, I'm unlikely to enjoy the round. If, however, there is something you fundamentally disagree with in the aff's conception of the world/their view of the political/educational process, use cards to supplement (instead of making) arguments, and can clearly articulate that problem and a resolution, I'm much more likely to be engaged. In fact, I'm very OK not giving a conventional speech and just talking if you go for the K, giving some narrative and d implicitly answering their arguments.

I guess I'm saying to be good at debating kritiks, which isn't particularly insightful.

7. I like **topicality**. Agnostic on reasonability/CI - my position is probably C/I, with some degree of just erring aff if I think the violation is unsubstantial. I'd prefer you not get tied down in the reasonability/CI debate, or what certain authors think words mean, and rather focus on how debate would function in the world of either interpretation, and whether or not it is justified to enforce that interpretation.

8. **Counterplans** should be competitive, and I have incredibly low standards for the aff to beat counterplans that compete off of should or steal the aff. However, I side fairly negative with PIC's, CP's that have solvency advocates that distinguish from aff, and other predictable CP's that steal most of the aff but at least have some theoretical justification for their existence. I enjoy and reward creative, well though out counterplans.
 * General**

Reading long prewritten blocks is very suspicious (especially in K, T, or DA impacts). If you are here, you may as well use your time to debate!

New to the philosophy thing, feel free to ask specific questions.

Debate should generally be fun. Be respectful of your opponents, and enjoy the opportunity to debate!