Maycock,+JR

JR Maycock
The fast guidelines: the one thing I want to see above all else in debate is quality of argumentation. I believe it is a true test of skill and persuasion to take the resources you have of evidence and arguments made in previous speeches and craft a fine-tuned overall story by the 2NR/2AR. Speaking of 2ARs, I hold them to a very high standard of having direct 1AR precedents for their arguments and will be quick to completely ignore stuff I believe to be too new. I am an //extremely// flow-centered judge, keeping things organized or emphasizing tactical line-by-line debate is a virtual mandate in earning my vote or getting good speaker points from me. I suspend my disbelief as a rule of playing this game. Good debaters with so-called bad arguments still win rounds because they simply articulate their positions better; debate in some sense is a game of sophistry and I expect you as the debaters to sell your arguments with skill and dedication. Remember, capital t Truth becomes mostly relative in-round, ideas which would seem highly implausible at best in the outside world can be made into round-controlling issues in debate. I do not like to sort through six flows and make all the connections myself at the end of the round, spell out the path of my decision in the final rebuttals so I do not have to risk construing an argument any differently than you do. I work hard to not read evidence post-debate unless the content of evidence is directly challenged, don't count on that as a winning factor. The easier/simpler you make my decision, the more likely I am to vote for you and reward your speaker points. My stance(s) on specific issues:

Topicality: I will pull the trigger on T if you give me a clear target with a good impact story. I'm a big fan of tricky T violations that open up a new perspective on the topic if the debaters can convince me that door is worth opening. I don't believe reasonability is a killer argument for the aff, try instead to frame your responses in terms of ground for each side in the debate, and why the neg's stricter limit set is not good for overall debate ground. If you don't explain these ground distinctions well or just go for reasonability, I tend to default to the limits debate. On both the neg and aff sides of the standards debate I always want to hear comparisons not just about the ground or limits given by your interpretation, but about the quality and nature of that ground or this certain limiting factor. Interpretations must be clear from the 1NC on and fit well within the entire resolution even if you only define one or two words. Extend your voters and impact your argument clearly on the neg if you plan on going for T. A 2NR should either be a T flow or go for some other set of flow(s), not both under anything but the most unusual circumstances. You will most likely need 4 or 5 minutes to make your argument perfectly clear and account for all possible 2AR responses. Do not harm yourself by trying to go for T and other substantive flows as well, that causes nothing but undercoverage and a lack of depth in argumentation.

Theory: I am fine with theory debates, however, I do not like mechanical "extend my number 3a education standard" debates or whiny claims about "abuse" at all. Slow down when first presenting your args and please present some sort of interpretation of your position, this makes it much easier for me to collect together the arguments in one cohesive message. Present a small number of points in the early speeches on theory and expand on this debate later – do not just read a 13-point conditionality bad block. This is true for several reasons, not the least of which is that there probably do not exist 13 distinct, high-quality reasons why conditionality could be bad. Try to turn the theory debate into a responsive discussion rather than a line by line mess; debate theory isn't computer code and I don't enjoy sorting through messy theory flows. Voters need relevance to the round, so be sure to establish that early on. Explaining your voters in terms of the nature of this year's resolution to give some extra context to the theory debate will help to win more points in my mind. Most theory debates tend to be reasons to merely reject an argument and not vote against the team who made that argument, if you want me to pull the trigger you have to explain why the theoretical objection matters to such an extent very clearly.

Theory vs. T: It's your choice really. If you want to go for theory and you're aff prove to me why the theoretical discrepancy is the focus of the round or a higher priority than the T arguments. If you're neg, try to prove to me why the aff being not topical is the reason you were being sketchy, and at the very least explain to me why debate always defaults back to the resolution and why that's what I should be examining. Generally, the neg seems to win this debate more often in my experience.

Kritiks: You'll garner my vote if you do them well. You'll put me to sleep VERY QUICKLY if you do them poorly. Please don't just read your generic link cards and not say something about the aff in the 1NC. Build a story as early as possible, possibly by isolating links to specific pieces of evidence in the 1AC. I will not do this work for you. You can convince me how terrible such and such concept is but unless you attach it almost inextricably to the aff case I tend to lose interest. Make the impact debate and alternative closely knit to the aff as well. If you read a K without an alternative be sure you can truly win it as a case turn or some mutant form of a linear disad. On the aff, a combination of the perm debate and either link/alternative answers or impact/alternative answers is usually your best strategy. In terms of fiat: the aff should generally get to weigh their case impacts vs. the K, but if you are neg you can win a different evaluation if you invest all the needed time in explaining to me why that evaluation is preferable. Be aware of the need to have a good framework debate, yet also be aware that much of the time said debate serves no purpose by the 2NR/2AR – either make the framework debate matter or jettison it early. I am familiar with most critiques of international relations and the state system, a little less familiar with arguments about gender, language, or psychoanalysis. Even if I have read the source literature of your kritik, do not expect me to substitute my pre-existing knowledge to fill in for your lack of in-round explanation. I tend to hold Ks to the highest standard of clarity for impact calculus and link analysis of any type of argument, so do extra work in explaining your story to make my decision as easy as possible.

Disads and Counterplans: I thoroughly enjoy good disad and counterplan debates. I mostly believe conditionality is alright, but there is still a debate to be had there. I'm very open to rejecting teams who deploy objectionable types of fiat, conditional PICs, and/or multiple conditional worlds if you can prove a unique brand of damage has occurred. Consult counterplans are contentious by their very nature, but when it comes to theory interpretations I like to see resolutionally based reasons why they should/should not be allowed on any particular topic. Do pay careful attention to writing counterplan texts, I hold them to nearly the same standard as aff plan texts – a flaw in the counterplan text which negatively affects in some way the suggested action of the counterplan can spell a quick and embarrassing death for the neg team. When trying to win a solvency deficit on the aff, remember to impact why the difference between neg and aff solvency actually matters or it's a moot point. While neg you do not always need a counterplan in the round to win a disad debate in front of me; you can win on having a bigger impact alone, but I would prefer that the disad includes some reason why it turns the case or for you to win external defense against the case impacts to solidify your disad. Careful link distinctions and multiple link levels are always a plus, the vast majority of disad rounds do not go into enough depth on link questions to actually make coherent sense. While aff, direct offense against the disad is always preferable, but powerful uniqueness/link defense or a controlling argument about the lack of a crucial internal link combined with good reasons why the case outweighs can still win you the round. I will not default to an offense/defense paradigm (as in "any risk of a link" style thinking) in voting unless I am directly told to do so, instead I tend to judge these debates based solely on the quality of the internal logic of whichever kind of argument was made.

Case: Sorely underutilized in contemporary debate. On the aff, extend your case in concise detail to keep the impacts alive in every speech, do not magically resurrect the case in the 2AR when it was ignored up to this point and expect me to vote for you. Remember, you read 8 minutes of a 1AC for a reason, utilize your case and its impacts as often and creatively as possible. On the neg, there are very few debates I like to see more than a huge throw-down on case. I have no problem voting for the status quo if you do the work to prove why the aff is a bad idea. The best neg case debates not only win reasons why the aff is bad, but also why the status quo can prevent the aff impacts from happening, which helps to grant uniqueness to your case arguments. At the very least, you should play intelligent defense against the case and any aff impact analysis right from the 1NC forward, otherwise all “case outweighs” arguments gain extra weight because the aff case was functionally conceded. This is one area in the debate where evidence comparisons matter even more than elsewhere, drawing these careful distinctions will not only garner my vote but also extra speaker points as well.

Impact calculus: Do it. Do it frequently and feverishly. If you don't, I won't have any way to discern relative importance of arguments or make a clear decision. Start these discussions in the 2AC and the neg block at latest. Make sure you are speaking comparatively and not just describing your own impact while ignoring your opponents' impacts or argument distinctions.

Speed: On a scale from one to ten put me as a nine. Speak clearly, I'll likely only remind you once during your speech before I simply stop flowing. Dropped arguments are treated as true arguments and given full weight as long as they have the slightest bit of coherent internal logic, I will vote for a cheap shot in ten seconds flat if it goes unanswered.

Any other questions just ask.

- JR