MacDonald,+Kurt

I have been the Director of Debate at Kent Denver School for the past 13 years, and was a competitive policy debater in the mid-80's (although the pace with which debate has changed in the ensuing decades makes that experience largely irrelevant). Taken collectively, the title and longevity of my involvement may lead you to falsely conclude that I am adept at the application of the most recent theory, arguments, and ideological discussions in debate. This is not always the case.
 * __Background__**

I stand firm in my belief that it is the debaters' obligation to explain how arguments interact, why I should prioritize one argument above another, and where I should fall on framework issues. Coming out of the rebuttals, I will not rely on my knowledge of debate or my out-of-round understanding of a specific author's arguments to render a decision, but rather will only use the debater's justifications for a particular decision. This places a large responsibility on the debaters, and they would be wise to ensure that they are explaining their arguments in a clear and succinct manner (because, even the most ingenious strategy, no matter how well executed, will be unsuccessful if it is not well explained). Clean warrant extensions followed by a coherent, narrative summary of how the round breaks down is greatly appreciated in the rebuttals.
 * __General Debate Philosophy__**

Speed is relative, and I find that most debaters disregard a judge's stated speed thresholds not out of discourtesy, but because what is fast to one person may be moderate to another. This subjectivity certainly poses a challenge for the debaters, but given that it is the debater's round, the responsibility for ensuring that their rate of delivery is appropriate for the judge is the debater's responsibility.
 * __Speed__**

I will tell you upfront that __I am not top speed, national circuit fast.__ I have no philosophical objections to speed, however (and I won't vote you down because of speed), but if you go too fast for me to flow your arguments, then it will inevitably impact the ballot on a substantive level (because I cannot give you credit for your arguments if I cannot flow them).

To help debaters understand my threshold for speed, I will call-out using two terms: "clear" and "slow."

"Clear" means that I don't think that I have a problem with your rate of delivery, but the clarity of your delivery is making arguments hard to fully catch. There are two possible solutions to my call for clarity: 1) improve your enunciation and pronunciation so that you have, indeed, improved clarity, and/or 2) to slow down (because a lot of clarity issues arise at speed). If I first give you a "clear," and your approach is to focus on improving enunciation, if I am still having trouble my next signal would be "slow" (in which case I am telling you that the only way I think you can improve is by slowing down).

"Slow" means that I am having a hard time keeping up because of pure speed. The only solution in this case is to slow down (and not by 1-2 words/minute, but some significant change; it is a pet peeve of mine when debaters don't make any notable adjustments after I provide them direct feedback in the way of "slow" or "clear"). Failing to heed this advice will likely impact speaker points.

I typically will only say things twice in a round. That is ample warning, and after that you are on your own.

As an FYI, where I find speed most troublesome is during the presentation of blipy/short arguments which do not give me adequate pen time. Some of these arguments are extremely valuable to the round (like theory standards, interpretations, violations; reasons to prefer framework, AFC, etc.), and if you blaze through them I am likely to miss some (and once again, if I don't flow it, I cannot consider it). You would be wise to ensure that you slow down sufficiently for these arguments to ensure that I can faithfully flow them.

All that said, I prefer meaningful clash over raw speed. On the national circuit when facing an experienced debater, rarely is spreading your debater out of the round the best tactical strategy because you may well spread me out of the round first.

__**Theory and Framework**__ I have no pre-defined threshold for T, theory, or procedural arguments, but I will almost assuredly side with the team that does the best job on the standards debate (both explaining the preference for their standards, as well as illustrating how their standards interact with and are superior to the standards of their opponent). It is this comparative analysis on the standards that I place in high regard (and I am often disappointed with the lack of genuine responsive debate on the standards level--most debaters seem to just spit out standards by default and hope that the word's "ground," "education," etc. carry some inherent argumentative weight; they don't, so __be sure to provide impact analysis on the theory/T-flows just like you would in other areas__).

Ultimately, you are responsible for the strategies you deploy. By this I mean that if you execute a strategy that invites a theory or framework debate (e.g. the AFF is entirely truth testing, and the NEG decides to run framework and a CP), then I think the NEG has a higher threshold to meet on the theory debate. Basically if you invite a theory/framework debate with your strategic choices, then you should expect that I will perceive you as having the "burden of proof" on these flows. You created the argument(s) through your choices, so you had better be in a very good position to clearly defend them. If the theory/framework debate gets muddled, I will often default to the interpretation/framework of the debater who did not create this particular debate in the first place--this could either be the AFF or the NEG so the responsibility resides with both debaters.

I like to think that I will evaluate all framework and substantive arguments without preconceived bias or prioritization. That said, I am probably better at evaluating some arguments over others. Specifically, I tend to naturally think in terms of a comparative worlds framework, but this does not suggest I have a pre-conceived bias toward that framework and will discount a truth testing paradigm. I tell you my natural inclination to think in terms of util./comparative worlds simply so that you are informed, and it can help shape your speeches (if nothing else, so you can spend an extra few seconds telling me why that isn't the best framework for a particular debate). Once again, I am a tab judge, so my innate instinct to think one particular way shouldn't dissuade you from doing what you are best at, it just may mean you may want to execute your arguments a bit more specifically.

I frequently find myself starting around a 27.5, and making adjustments either up or down based on the debaters' in-round performance.
 * __Speaker Points__**

Factors which would improve your points include (in no particular order): 1) clarity of presentation; 2) organization of the speech (devising a purposeful and maximally effective ordering of arguments, executing that strategy, and not jumping around the flow); 3) providing a clean, comprehensive narrative summary of the round break-down in the final rebuttal (after proper extensions, of course), 4) making strategic choices that simplify the ballot story; 5) being funny; 6) winning the perceptual contest--look like you're winning; 7) being purposeful (no rambling or hesitant roadmaps, speeches, etc.); 8) showing me that you have read my paradigm and are adapting your style and choices to meet my abilities and preferences.

Factors which would lower your points include (in no particular order): 1) Being rude, disrespectful, petty, or generally a jerk; 2) Disregarding my calls of "clear" or "slow;" 3) creating or contributing to the lack of clarity in a debate (muddling the debate); 4) demonstrating that you have either not read my paradigm or are purposefully disregarding it; 5) doing the opposite of the factors listed above to improve points.

Ultimately, I think very good debaters in a very well orchestrated round should expect speaker points between 29-29.5. 30 is perfect, and to respect the significance of that score I anticipate giving that score biannually on the harvest moon.

I don't teach a debate class, I don't work at a summer debate institute, and I have not taken a single philosophy or rhetoric course in my life (my graduate degree is in neuroscience, and I teach neuroscience and evolutionary biology).
 * __Disclaimer__**

I am sufficiently intelligent to understand most well presented arguments, and I will endeavor to make the best decision possible given the circumstances of the debate.

If you have additional questions, please just ask.