McNamara,+Deena

Deena R. McNamara, Esq.


 * UPDATED FOR EMORY 2017**


 * Background/Judging:**

I was a traditional LD debater and policy debater in high school. In college, I competed in LD and CEDA. College LD and CEDA (back in those days) were very similar to circuit LD. Debaters used T, theory and even Ks back in those dark ages of debate. We were the pioneers that established what LD has evolved into over the last couple of decades. You're welcome?!

I have been a litigation attorney for the last 19 years. I have judged LD on and off for the last 12 years. I have judged at high level competitions and in out-rounds at NFL/NSDA nationals, CFL nationals, Blue Key, Crestian, Harvard, Yale, Emory, Bronx and Wake Forest along with many others. I audited a progressive LD camp in the summer of 2014 and consider myself well versed in debate jargon. I always familiarize myself with the topic literature prior to each tournament. I have judged so much that I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of what LD has become and I pay attention to every detail in the round. You will never see me on FB or playing computer games in round. It makes me very angry to see that is common practice amongst the judges on the panels that I sit on. I take the round very seriously and I even flow CX. I care about your round and will do my absolute best to judge it as fairly as possible. By the way, please don't text in a round that I am judging until you are waiting on the RFD- thanks.

I try to be a //tabula rasa// judge; however, like everyone I do have certain dislikes and preferences.


 * FW Debate:**

If you are going to engage in a FW debate then I expect you to present a value/value criterion framework with philosophical support for the position. I am especially familiar with Kant, Ripstein, Korsgard, Rand, Aristotle, Locke, Rawls, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, Bentham and probably a few others that I cannot think of off the top of my head. I expect detailed frameworks and contention level arguments that link to the framework. You cannot win on FW alone, unless it has offense sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution.


 * Ks:**

I am really starting to like Ks. However, do not offer me some esoteric, unintelligible K because you think the other side will not understand it or be able to defend it. If you decide to present a K, then provide me an alternative.It is insufficient to say "reject Capitalism" and leave me hanging as to what happens after we reject it. On the ROTB/ROTJ args, you have to make them specific; don't just tell me that you win because you minimize oppression of minorities. Who? How? Also, please weigh against your opponent's FW or ROTB/ROTJ if they provided a different one. Don't tell me things like "they keep biting into my K" as some justification you expect to win on. Seriously- I need analysis of arguments, not just blippy responses that you think qualify as extensions or arguments against your opponent's args. If you make a blippy argument, then that is how I weigh the argument in the round- minimally.


 * Plans/CPs/DAs:**

I am fine with Plans and Counterplans. Please make sure that they are sufficiently developed. Please do not read generic DAs- make sure they are relevant and specific to the argument made by your opponent.


 * T, theory and misc:**

I am amenable to topicality arguments as they will probably be necessary to attack cases that fail to argue the resolution as stated. Don't just run a generic T arg because you expect that I will vote on it before your opponent's case. It has to be a legit violation. You have to try to clarify in CX and CX is binding. I am fine with theory //ONLY// to check abuse. I will not vote on disclosure theory. You know the res and the possible arguments that could be made. I do expect debaters to flash cases and evidence in round or to provide hard copies. Also, T is different from theory. If you do not know the difference, then please do not argue with me after the round. I will explain the difference to you, but I won't engage in a lengthy debate with you on it. If you have spikes or //a// //priori// arguments, please make sure that you point them out so that I do not miss them. I expect you to address all of your opponent's arguments and uphold your own in each of your speeches. No new arguments are allowed in rebuttals, but extensions and refutations of ongoing arguments are encouraged. Speaking quickly is acceptable if you slow down for the tag lines and key arguments; I will yell clear. However, your arguments need to make it onto my flow. I am a flow judge, but if I cannot understand you, then I cannot evaluate your arguments. I do not want you to flash me your case because the purpose of communication in an LD round is to communicate your position to the judge. if you flash me your case, then I am just reading your position and I could have stayed home to do that.


 * LD as a sport:**

LD is a sport. It requires hard work and endurance. Please make sure that you are courteous to your opponent. If you are debating a novice, please do not spread. I will take points off. If you are the better debater and have the better case, then you will win. Please be sportsmanlike. We want to encourage all LDers because LD is truly the best event.

Please be considerate of triggers and of past experiences that your opponent may have suffered. It is not fun to judge a round where a competitor is crying or losing their cool because of something that is happening in round. No round is worth hurting someone else to win. Plus, if you act like a total d-bag and are so disrespectful that I am angry (which takes a lot to get me angry) then you will lose and be given low speaks.


 * Voters and what I like to vote on:**

Please give me voters. It is helpful to me as the judge to see why you thought you won the round. If I think you are wrong, then I can tell you on the ballot and you will learn from it. If you are right and I agree with you, then I can use your voters in the RFD. I tend to vote on offense and who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. I do not have a strong preference of aff or neg so do not expect me to default neg. However, the aff's burden of proof is a bit more difficult and I would say I vote aff about 45% of the time and neg 55% of the time. Just be clear on why you affirm or negate. Finally, I do not necessarily strictly follow the "layers" of debate. So if you are curious as to what I will vote on first (in terms of theory, T, Ks, etc.), please ask me in the round. I always want debaters to be clear as to how I will evaluate the round.


 * Pet Peeves:**

Please do not say "we" when referring to your case position, please do not say "my opponent conceded the argument" when they really did not and please do not ask me if you can use the rest of your cx as prep.


 * Speaker points at a circuit tournaments:**

When I award speaker points, I judge you based on quality of arguments you made in the round, your analysis and weighing as well as CX. CX is extremely important if you want to get top speaks. (At locals, I might inflate these a bit based on the competition.)

30- you are a top seed and have not dropped a round- you were perfect! 29.5- you are a top seed, have not dropped a round- you were almost perfect! 29- you are a top seed, maybe dropped a round- did an excellent job! 28.5- you are expected to break, dropped a round- did an excellent job! 28- you are expected to break, dropped a round or two- still did an excellent job! 27.5- you are probably 4-2 and did a good job. 27- you are probably 4-2 or 3-3 and just need to work on analysis, cx or other in round skills. 26- I am glad that you are at the tournament- keep working, go to camp and stay in this event because it is the best!