Michael McCue Paradigm

Last changed 23 November 2015 12:37 PM EDT

Pine Crest School Class of 2014
Northwestern University Class of 2018

I debated at Pine Crest and Northwestern. I am a student of the game and love argument innovation and the activity in general. I am thinking about debate an insane amount of time, especially during school, and hope that my dedication to the activity will be shown through my attentiveness in round. There are a few caveats if I am judging you discussed below but if you have any questions that aren’t answered there are a couple of steps you can take:

1. Look at other judging philosophies. The judges that I believe I am most similar to are: Jeremy Hammond (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hammond%2C+Jeremy), Will Repko (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Repko%2C+Will) and Garrett Abelkop (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Abelkop%2C+Garrett). One of my favorite judges is jon sharp (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/sharp%2C+jon) though, so I’m not just influenced by MSU.

2. Ask me if you still can’t find anything. The question “what are your preferences” is annoying so be specific.

Meta-Judging Philosophy-
I believe that the purpose of the judge is to not only decide debates but to also decide what curriculum should be debated. Arguments such as timecube, dada and ashtar have little to no educational benefit. These can be adequately answered by saying “this is nonsensical and hasn’t disproven the aff” and moving on.

Absent the arguments above, there are a few things below that you should read if you are debating in front of me. I do think that tech is *very* important, but connections are as well. The point of a debate is to convince the judge to vote for you. The way that ethos are developed are by making connections with the judge. These are extremely good for speaker points as well.
At the same time, I default to tech over truth. If you win an argument/one is dropped even if it isn't the best then I will vote for you.

Clarity is more important than speed. Speed is measured in the number of arguments that the judge has on their flow, not how many words per minute you can speak.

When judging at round robins/tournaments with no prefs I will try to judge with as few predispositions as possible.
Judges usually give the 2AR too much leeway.

I lean more towards cards and believe that solid evidence and a good work ethic are two of the most important aspects in a successful debater.

A team that is caught cheating will be given zero speaker points and a loss. It is important for the other team to have a recording of the cheating team to decide the debate on this.
Paperless-
Prep time ends when the jump drive exits the computer of the debater giving the speech. I will be keeping track of prep but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t as well, keeping in mind that what I say goes. Not flowing is a terrible side effect of paperless and can be punished at my discretion.

Critical Affirmatives-
I ran them. I will listen to them. I will vote for them. I find these debates to be very interesting, but I hate when they become very personal/polemical to the point of putting everyone in the debate (including me) in an extraordinarily awkward or angry situation. If your argument is not based around identity I do think that you have an uphill battle on framework. This being said, I do enjoy affirmatives that defend topical action centered around a kritik. One example of this is the Cuban Hospitality aff.

Disadvantages-
I am a big fan of a good politics debate as well as any in depth disad debate. I find it hard, if not impossible, for the affirmative to defeat a disadvantage without a source of offense.

Impact calculus is very important when deciding any debate, and the more that you can get away from the traditional A. Magnitude, B. Probability, C. Timeframe model is better but only if you maintain the integrity of the arguments.

Counterplans-
Counterplans mitigate the risk of affirmative advantages against the disadvantage, and the 2NR should frame the debate in this way. I have found that without a solvency deficit to a counterplan the negative wins an astounding percentage of the time.
There is a debate as to what types of counterplans are acceptable in a debate, as well as what counterplans can fiat. I generally believe counterplans such as consult, conditions, recommendations, plan contingent counterplans or counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy are both abusive and not competitive. A counterplan should be both textually and functionally competitive, but this is up for debate and I can be persuaded otherwise. Competition is defined as both better than the plan and better than a combination of the plan and all or part of the counterplan.

Kritiks -
I believe that I am a much better judge for kritiks on the negative as opposed to the affirmative. Avoid falling into a debate about random buzzwords at all costs and engage the aff. I understand the technicalities of the kritik debate and am perfectly fine with the negative reading and going for kritiks such as Security, Lacan/Psychoanalysis, Cap (as well as most Zizek), Heidegger, Cuomo, Kappeler, Pan, Chaloupka, Spanos/Imperialism, Foucault/Biopower and Luke.
If you are not reading one of these kritiks know that I have read (a pretty decent amount of) K literature but do need clarifications if your argument is complex or different. Different kritiks that fall under this category are D&G (I do understand the argument, but am not in touch with the finer points of the debate), Hardt and Negri, Badiou, Baudrillard (I find this utterly not understandable, and, as one of my coaches said “if you think you understand it then you don’t understand Baudrillard), Zupanic, Bataille etc.

When debating either kritiks that I am familiar with or ones that I am not you should make the debate as specific as possible; I find that kritik debates often devolve into vague representations links or generic topic debates and would appreciate it if you can show how the affirmative specifically is an example of ___.
Ideologically, I do think the affirmative should get to weigh their aff, but am tech-oriented on the framework debate. Floating Pik’s are abusive. I do not understand why the negative can sever their reps from a DA but the aff can’t from their advantages.

Judge choice is an interesting argument but in a hypothetical instance that the affirmative reads 3 advantages, the negative k’s 2 and the aff says judge choice the negative should still weigh the comparative disadvantages of the 2 advantages vs. the advantage of the other 1.

Theory-
One conditional advocacy is usually not abusive. I think that ideological conditionality (1 CP and 1 K) is the best form. I can be persuaded that conditionality is bad for debate, especially if the negative reads more than 3 conditional advocacies. I feel that 3 conditional advocacies is playing with fire for the neg.

Reject the argument not the team applies to every theory argument except conditionality. Dropping subpoint 3- no neg fiat on the conditionality debate, or other similar cheap shot theory arguments are not a voting issue and I will give leniency to new answers.

Topicality-
The framework for evaluating topicality debates is an area where I lean towards competing interpretations. Affirmatives that are core of the topic often under-utilize precision combined with reasonability. I do not enjoy spec arguments.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX R5 108 189 Neg Neg 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX R4 195 107 Neg Neg 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX R3 199 148 Aff Aff 2-1
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX R2 105 160 Aff Aff 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX R1 136 179 Neg Aff 2-1
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-18 VCX R7 Cypress Bay KK Maine East RS Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-18 VCX R6 Peninsula LS Desert Vista AW Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-18 VCX R3 Cabot BS RTC Medical Prep AR Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-18 VCX R2 Stuyvesant CH Greenhill EG Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2017-11-18 VCX R1 Homestead WK Kinkaid GP Neg
Georgetown Day School Invitational HS 2017-09-22 CX Semifi Stuyvesant DS Berkeley Prep MY Aff Neg 2-1
Georgetown Day School Invitational HS 2017-09-22 CX Octafi Stuyvesant FW Jesuit CP GT Aff Aff 3-0
Georgetown Day School Invitational HS 2017-09-22 CX R7 La Salle ST DuVal CY Neg
Georgetown Day School Invitational HS 2017-09-22 CX R6 Jesuit CP HM Thomas Jefferson HSST JM Neg
Georgetown Day School Invitational HS 2017-09-22 CX R5 Baltimore City PL Berkeley Prep WK Aff
Georgetown Day School Invitational HS 2017-09-22 CX R4 Broad Run PS Thomas Jefferson HSST PY Aff
Georgetown Day School Invitational HS 2017-09-22 CX R3 Baltimore City CG McDonogh WZ Aff
Georgetown Day School Invitational HS 2017-09-22 CX R2 Mamaroneck MM La Salle SH Neg
Georgetown Day School Invitational HS 2017-09-22 CX R1 Oakton ZW DC International AL Aff
Heart of Texas Invitational HS 2016-10-14 PD Double Glenbrook South SB Woodward AS Neg Neg 2-1
Heart of Texas Invitational HS 2016-10-14 PD R6 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart AT Harker HH Neg
Heart of Texas Invitational HS 2016-10-14 PD R5 Peninsula TW Montgomery Bell GJ Aff
Heart of Texas Invitational HS 2016-10-14 PD R3 Montgomery Bell ZD Marist AV Neg
Heart of Texas Invitational HS 2016-10-14 PD R2 Berkeley Prep YM Montgomery Bell BH Neg
Heart of Texas Invitational HS 2016-10-14 PD R1 Montgomery Bell JC Peninsula JK Aff
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2016-09-03 Var Octos Montgomery Bell BH Brooklyn Independent Debate YD Aff Neg 2-1
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2016-09-03 Var Double Georgetown Day BS Lexington GL Aff Aff 3-0
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2016-09-03 Var R4 Westminster Schools-Atlanta RM Oak Hill ST Aff
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2016-09-03 Var R2 New Trier KW Westminster Schools-Atlanta DG Neg
Policy Early Bird at Wake Forest HS 2016-09-03 Var R1 Brophy CP GS Niles North BL Aff
2016 Crestian Classic Policy Debate Tournament HS 2016-02-10 RR Finals Glenbrook North JT Highland Park Senior BD Aff Aff 3-0
2016 Crestian Classic Policy Debate Tournament HS 2016-02-10 RR R7 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart CP Westminster Schools CB Aff Aff 2-0
2016 Crestian Classic Policy Debate Tournament HS 2016-02-10 RR R6 Woodward BP Pace FM Neg Neg 2-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL R3 Peninsula TW Greenhill WM Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2016-01-29 PEL R1 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart BG Head Royce PC Neg
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates HS 2016-01-15 OCX Quar Milton FM Montgomery Bell CJ Aff Aff 3-0
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates HS 2016-01-15 OCX Octs Milton FM Alpharetta KC Aff Aff 3-0
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates HS 2016-01-15 OCX Round Johns Creek LR Chattahoochee ST Aff
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates HS 2016-01-15 OCX Round Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart FM Alpharetta CW Neg
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates HS 2016-01-15 OCX Round USN WB Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart PT Aff
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates HS 2016-01-15 OCX Round Alpharetta KK Montgomery Bell DD Aff
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates HS 2016-01-15 OCX Round Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart TD Westminster Schools GH Neg
University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates HS 2016-01-15 OCX Round Milton HH Westlake TS Aff
University of Michigan HS Tournament HS 2015-10-28 VCX R7 Westminster Schools HD Iowa City WZ Aff
University of Michigan HS Tournament HS 2015-10-28 VCX R6 Westminster Schools ZK Lane Tech VH Neg
University of Michigan HS Tournament HS 2015-10-28 VCX R5 Wylie E. Groves GM Westminster Schools CK Neg
University of Michigan HS Tournament HS 2015-10-28 VCX R4 Wylie E. Groves GS Seaholm LE Aff
University of Michigan HS Tournament HS 2015-10-28 VCX R3 New Trier CR Niles North SO Aff
University of Michigan HS Tournament HS 2015-10-28 VCX R2 Lexington ZR Niles North OKS Aff
University of Michigan HS Tournament HS 2015-10-28 VCX R1 New Trier BW Mt Vernon Presbyterian MM Aff
Niles North Scrimmage HS 2015-10-24 JV Rd 3 Niles North LZ Glenbrook South WF Aff
Niles North Scrimmage HS 2015-10-24 JV Rd 2 Glenbrook North JL Niles North WM Neg
Niles North Scrimmage HS 2015-10-24 JV Rd 1 Glenbrook North NS Niles North MC Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2015-01-23 CX R4 Brooklyn Independent Debate RW Carrollton WC Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2015-01-23 CX R3 Atholton RS Lexington CD Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2015-01-23 CX R2 Lexington SZ Newark Science FS Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools HS 2015-01-23 CX R1 Ransom Everglades PB Brooklyn Independent Debate DE Neg