Grant McKeever – he/him – email@example.com (put this on the email chain and feel free to ask questions)
Put me on the email chain/speech drop/gimme the flash drive/whatever just share ev w me.
Did both KDC and DCI and ran a whole host of different arguments
I’m open to whatever you want to run, specifics down below. Default to policymaker.
Don’t be disrespectful. Please. Just don’t.
"Truth informs tech" - Eric Skoglund (but usually lean tech on policy rounds and truth in K rounds)
TW// I ask that you don't read arguments of death/su!cide good, or go super deep into gruesome details of either. I'll be alright with brief mentions of it, but nothing graphic or supporting it please. I'll keep this updated as needed but for now please don't.
Speed – Spreading is fine. Make sure everyone in the round is okay with it though before you do. I can understand it but only to an extent, so if you want analytics flowed then slow down or send them in the doc. I'll clear you a couple of times, but if the pen is down I'm not recording your arguments.
Framing – it’s good. Please use it, especially if there’s different impacts in the debate. Impact calc is very good, use it to the best of your ability. I'm a policymaker after all you’ll win the round here. I do tend to lean towards structural violence/soft-left framing on a truth level but can be persuaded otherwise.
2NC/1NR – please split the block. I’ve judged and have been in an alarmingly large number of rounds where the neg doesn’t split the block, and I don’t fancy judging one. Not a fan of new in the 2NC. If you didn't run an off case or address case in the 1NC it's probably too late to do it then. The only exception is theory/Ks that relate to events during the debate.
"If I get to tell you who won right after the round, I invite you to ask questions on my decisions. Respectfully disagree and tell me I'm a fool, and/or schedule an appointment to catch these hands" -Owen Crouch
I wouldn’t try more than 8 off, for a lot of reasons. That's not a challenge for you so please don't.
Ks – I probably don’t know all of your lit. As long as you explain I should be fine and am more than willing to vote on them. I'm once again reminding that you should either send your analyitcs or slow down otherwise else my flow WILL be a mess.
Ks I'm pretty familiar with and ran the most: abolition, cap/neolib
Ks I know some about, ran a couple times: sett col, ableism
Ks I know a tiny bit about: afropess/antiblackness, queerness, biopower
Topicality – I love a good T debate. Not a fan of T as a time suck; it's legitimately so good. If the aff is untopical go for it. Slow down a bit on the standards/voters piece of things. I'll usually try and default to competing interps/impact debates, but it won't be too hard to get me to evaluate on reasonability. I can get behind good T debate.
-Bonus points if the interp is regarding plurality of a word and you manage to get a violation
CPs – Mostly good. I despise Process CPs and Delay CPs. Though I probably prefer rejecting the arg, neg teams have a steep uphill battle to win that Process CPs are good. I'll still evaluate Process CPs, I'll just be sad (extra bonus sadness if the CP is ICJ). CPs theory is highly underused, so as long as I can flow them you can win here. Condo is usually good but I default a bit to reasonability here - especially if the aff points out specific abuse from condo (perf con, multiple planks, etc) then I won't mind voting on it. I frame this debate more as a scale of "if the CP solves ___ much of the aff, what does the net benefit's link and impact need to be to still outweigh" - so pairing good case defense and net benefit debate is crucial.
DAs – Good. Please just have at least a somewhat reasonable link chain. I feel like structural violence DAs are underused, I enjoyed going for a lot of these impacts.
Theory – Go for it. In round behavior? Call them out! I still will probably default to competing interps.
Case – I feel that case debate is highly under-utilized. A strong case debate is just as, if not a slightly more, viable way to my ballot. However, please pair it with some sort of offense; case defense is good but if there's no offense against the aff then I vote aff. Especially with a CP that avoids the deficits heck yeah.
K Affs – probably don’t know all of your lit, just explain it. I've read planless and performance affs before, though my main experience is with soft left.
Soft Left – big fan. Go for it.
Extinction Impacts – Same as DAs – probable link chain and make sure aff is substantial. I highly doubt Biden keeping a jar of water from the Great Lakes in his freezer will solve 4 scenarios of extinction, so keep the link chains short and reasonable
Inherency – pretty big threshold to voting on an inherency arg. With that being said, please make an aff that has some sort of inherency.
Solvency – I feel like this may go against my policy maker nature but please win solvency. If you don’t win solvency you very much struggle to win your advantages and will probably lose.
I don't have a specific scale or anything, just do your best and I'll keep it even.
BONUS: each team may send one (1) meme in the email chain. If I like your meme, +.1 speaker points. If I dislike, it, -.3 speaker points. Weigh how funny you are and, better yet, my bad sense of humor.
BONUS 2: i have many nicknames that are variations of my name (grunt mckoover is one). +.1 if you correctly guess one and call me it in round, and +.2 if you come up with a new one that i like. -.1 point for every variation i dislike.
Good luck, and have fun!
Last Update September 2021