McCabe,+Mike

Experience: I am the head policy coach at La Salle and have been since the start of the 2012-13 school year. This will be my 11th topic either debating, judging, or coaching. Heading into Emory, I have judged 28 varsity debates.

Update 2015: I decided to update my paradigm because I thought it was a little light on explanation, and if I was debating, I’d want to know more, rather than less, about a judge.

Overarching paradigm:
 * 1) __You should do what you do best and do it well __– I am familiar with, and comfortable on voting on, a very wide range of arguments. I just like warranted debate and clash. An effective argument has three parts: a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication. My flow, not my preconceived notions, will determine every debate I judge, with the one caveat…
 * 2) __I will not vote on any morally reprehensible argument __.If your argument makes me uncomfortable as a high school educator, I will reject it. You should ask yourself, if my teachers/administrators were observing, would I make this same argument? If the answer is no, you should put those arguments away. Other than that, have fun!

If you need more, here are my thoughts: General: Speed is fine, but clarity is still important. I have begun to ask to be included on email chains; however, my ability to follow along with your speech does not mean you have the freedom to go too fast. I think most debaters could slow down, be more efficient, and would actually get more arguments out, without sacrificing clarity. My favorite debates are ones that occur with mutual respect between opponents; therefore, prep time stealing or being rude are the quickest ways to lose speaker points. I don’t flow cross-x, but I listen intently.I believe that Tech>truth; however, when you have tech and truth on your side, it’s hard to lose.

Framework: I think that the affirmative should defend a topical plan—that is my default; however, I have and will continue to vote for teams that choose not to do so. When done well framework debates can be engaging and an important educational tools (along with an effective negative option). When executed poorly, framework is quite dull. I am more than comfortable voting on framework (my team reads it). However, I am most persuaded about form of education arguments and dialogue/engagement standards, rather than fairness standards. Additionally, framework debates with engaging case cards is a great strategy, a 5 minute framework shell with 3 minutes of cede the political evidence isn’t. If I reflect back on the last years of judging, I think aff/neg ballots on framework have been about 50/50. This is my longest section because a large amount of debates that I judge involve an affirmative without a plan and a negative reading framework.

Topicality: I haven’t voted on topicality in a long time, but it hasn’t been my choice. I feel debaters don’t go for T anymore. I am sympathetic to reasonability, but will default to competing interpretations. Topicality is no different from other arguments. Your standards are internal links to impacts (voting issues). I want a clear picture of what those arguments are and what they mean for debate (I.E. why is your version of limits good, etc.)

Dis-ads: Impact calculus decide these debates and I believe that timeframe and probability are just as important as magnitude. With that being said, I think that all four parts of a dis-ad are important, which is why I believe in assigning an (dis)advantage, no risk. The link and uniqueness do not determine the direction of each other, but go ahead and make that argument I suppose I think that internal link uniqueness is not attacked enough by the affirmative.

Counterplans: The more specific the solvency advocate is, the better. Don’t love cheating counterplans, but those are arguments for the aff to make. Blippy theory is probably a reason to reject the arg, not team (at best). Condo is probably the most persuasive aff theory.

Kritiks: My team reads the security K in a lot of debates, and I am well read in the literature surrounding colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism from my own graduate studies. All of that being said, you shouldn’t just read the K because you think I might like it. The more specific the alternative is, the better in my mind. The more specific the links are to the action of plan, the better.

Paperless: I don’t take prep time for flashing as long as it is not ridiculous amount of time. Please use email chains if available, they are much faster. I will ask to be included on email chains because it is just easier to call for evidence (and to determine clipping); however, for time’s sake I will not ask to be included for flashing.

Cheating: I wish I did not have to include this section, any form of cheating will be punished immediately with a loss and zero speaker points for the offending team. Any accusations of cheating will be taken seriously.