Congressional Debate - I look for participants to engage into the subject matter and create a true debate experience. When a speech is given I expect to hear two main takeaways; 1) New arguments, and 2) Rebuttals or responses to previous opposing speakers. The only exception to this would be the authorship/first pro speech. For that speech I expect the speaker to layout the problem and why the legislation will fix the problem. I would like to see all arguments in any speech supported with factual based evidence, that includes valid sources. Any time a speaker is able to create analogies or references to circular foods, especially pizza or cookies, it helps me to enjoy the speech more and will help keep my attention throughout the entire speech. If speakers are failing to give new arguments and responses to opposing speakers, the other participants and judges will begin to loose interest. The speaker will not standout as an outstanding member of the chamber.

Congressional Debate:

I should start off by saying that I am a judge who is a stickler about citing sources and having good scholarly facts. Learning how to properly research is important to debate and so is citing.

I am a judge that expects bills that are thoroughly researched and well written by those that have authorship and those that have sponsorship I believe that everyone should dress and act appropriately and treat each other with respect. There is no reason to shout or talk over one another and I expect the PO to maintain the order and the rules. I am a judge who doesn’t start the PO off at 1 in scoring because I need the PO to show me they are active in the room and not just staring at a clock or their phone. If I see a PO on their phone for any other reason then I will lower them farther. I expect lots of facts and I want to know exactly where those facts are from and I don’t believe Wikipedia is a scholarly article. I like to hear refutations and know that debaters are paying attention to each other. I don’t want to see a lot of rehash, I want to see movement of the bills if there is nothing new. As a judge, I don’t want to listen to five pros cause everyone wants to give their prepared speech. Be spontaneous and attentive to what is going on in the room. I like a spontaneous speech that is to something another student spoke on than a well prepared long drawn out speech that I knew was coming any day of the week. Have fun and be prepared to speak.

My Education:

Bachelors of Arts in Criminal Justice from Mount Mercy University

Associates of Arts in Paralegal Studies from Kirkwood Community College

Updated 9-26-2013

Kevin McCaffrey

Assistant Debate Coach Glenbrook North 2014-
Assistant Debate Coach Berkeley Preparatory School 2010-2014
Assistant Debate Coach University of Miami 2007-2009
Assistant Debate Coach Gulliver Preparatory School 2005-2010

I feel strongly about both my role as an impartial adjudicator and as an educator – situations where these roles come into conflict are often where I find that I have intervened. I try to restrain myself from intervening in a debate, but I make mistakes, and sometimes find myself presented with two options which seem comparably interventionary in different ways, often due to underarticulated argumentation. This effort represents a systematic effort to identify the conditions under which I am more or less likely to intervene unconsciously. I try to keep a beginner’s mind and approach every debate round as a new learning opportunity, and I do usually learn at least one new thing every round – this is what I like most about the activity, and I’m at my best when I remember this and at my worst when I forget it.

My default paradigm is that of a policy analyst – arguments which assume a different role (vote no, performance) probably require more effort to communicate this role clearly enough for me to understand and feel comfortable voting for you. I don’t really have a very consistent record voting for or against any particular positions, although identity- and psychology-based arguments are probably the genres I have the least experience with and I’m not a good judge for either.

Rather, I think you’re most interested in the situations in which I’m likely to intervene – and what you can do to prevent it – this has much less to do with what arguments you’re making than it does with how you’re making them:

Make fewer arguments, and explain their nature and implication more thoroughly:

My unconscious mind carries out the overwhelming majority of the grunt work of my decisions – as I listen to a debate, a mental map forms of the debate round as a cohesive whole, and once I lose that map, I don’t usually get it back. This has two primary implications for you: 1) it’s in your interest for me to understand the nuances of an argument when first presented, so that I can see why arguments would be more or less responsive as or before they are made in response 2) debates with a lot of moving parts and conditional outcomes overload my ability to hold the round in my mind at once, and I lose confidence in my ability to effectively adjudicate, having to move argument by argument through each flow after the debate – this increases the chances that I miss an important connection or get stuck on a particular argument by second-guessing my intuition, increasing the chances that I intervene.

I frequently make decisions very quickly, which signals that you have done an effective job communicating and that I feel I understand all relevant arguments in the debate. I don’t believe in reconstructing debates from evidence, and I try to listen to and evaluate evidence as it's being read, so if I am taking a long time to make a decision, it’s probably because I doubt my ability to command the relevant arguments and feel compelled to second-guess my understanding of arguments or their interactions, a signal that you have not done an effective job communicating, or that you have inadvertently constructed an irresolveable decision calculus through failure to commit to a single path to victory.

In short, I make much better decisions when you reduce the size of the debate at every opportunity, when you take strategic approaches to the debate which are characterized by internally consistent logic and assumptions, and when you take time to explain the reasoning behind the strategic decisions you are making, and the meta-context for your arguments. If your approach to debate strategy depends upon overloading the opponent’s technical capabilities, then you will also likely overload my own, and if your arguments aren't broadly compatible with one another, then I may have difficulty processing them when constructing the big picture. I tend to disproportionately reward gutsy all-in strategic decisions. As a side note, I probably won’t kick a counterplan for you if the other team says just about anything in response, you need to make a decision.

Value proof higher than rejoinder:

I am a sucker for a clearly articulated, nuanced story, supported by thorough discussion of why I should believe it, especially when supported by high-quality evidence, even in the face of a diversity of poorly articulated or weak arguments which are only implicitly answered. Some people will refer to this as truth over tech – but it’s more precisely proof over rejoinder – the distinction being that I don’t as often reward people who say things that I believe, but rather reward fully developed arguments over shallowly developed or incomplete arguments. There have been exceptions – a dropped argument is definitely a true argument – but a claim without data and a warrant is not an argument. Similarly, explicit clash and signposting are merely things which help me prevent myself from intervening, not hard requirements. Arguments which clash still clash whether a debater explains it or not, although I would strongly prefer that you take the time to explain it, as I may not understand that they clash or why they clash in the same way that you do.

My tendency to intervene in this context is magnified when encountering unfamiliar arguments, and also when encountering familiar arguments which are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally. As an example, I am far more familiar with positivist studies of international relations than I am with post-positivist theorizing, so debaters who can command the distinctions between various schools of IR thought have an inherent advantage, and I am comparably unlikely to understand the nuances of the distinctions between one ethical philosopher and another. I am interested in learning these distinctions, however, and this only means you should err on the side of explaining too much rather than not enough.

A corollary is that I do believe that various arguments can by their nature provide zero risk of a link (yes/no questions, empirically denied), as well as effectively reduce a unique risk to zero by making the risk equivalent to chance or within the margin of error provided by the warrant. I am a sucker for conjunctive/disjunctive probability analysis, although I think assigning numerical probabilities is almost never warranted.

Incomprehensible value systems:

One special note is that I have a moderate presumption against violence, whether physical or verbal or imaginary – luckily for me, this has yet to seriously present itself in a debate I have judged. But I don’t think I have ever ended up voting for a pro-death advocacy, whether because there are more aliens than humans in the universe, or because a thought experiment about extinction could change the way I feel about life, or because it’s the only path to liberation from oppression. While I’d like to think I can evaluate these arguments objectively, I’m not entirely sure that I really can, and if advocating violence is part of your argument, I am probably a bad judge for you, even though I do believe that if you can’t articulate the good reasons that violence and death are bad, then you haven’t adequately prepared and should probably lose.

Email me:

I like the growing practice of emailing flows and debriefing at the end of a day or after a tournament – feel free to email me: kmmccaffrey at gmail dot com. It sometimes takes me a while to fully process what has happened in a debate round and to understand why I voted the way I did, and particularly in rounds with two very technical, skilled opponents, even when I do have a good grasp of what happened and feel confident in my decision, I do not always do a very good job of communicating my reasoning, not having time to write everything out, and I do a much better job of explaining my thinking after letting my decision sit for a few hours. As such, I am very happy to discuss any decision with anyone in person or by email – I genuinely enjoy being challenged – but I am much more capable and comfortable with written communication than verbal.

Pronouns: they/them

Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, behaviorally "icky." if you make snarky remarks that feel like personal or direct attacks to your fellow competitors, you immediately lose speaker points — sexism, racism, and other harmful actions&behaviors is an automatic thumbs down, no ballot from me. Do not deliberately misgender your opponents, I will report you to the tournament for harassment.

Background: Teaching, judging, head coachin' XP.Angles that touch on collective social benefit and education speak to me as a judge - I believe there is a way any team can win the majority of ballots if they do their homework, ask questions, adapt. Why not "all" ballots and just a majority? --> those inhospitable judges who stand on problematic foundations - but that's a conversation for the ombudsman and equity panel; I strongly believe judges & all adult shareholders need to be student-centered, constructive, and responsible for maintaining healthy competition and continuous learning in this activity. If you are a coach or judge focused on *just* 'winning' or being 'right' and right is only your values, then ew. if you are a judge, coach, or student who makes comments on competitors' appearance or things they cannot control, I will call you out in round -- student or adult, I don't care, I will call your behavior out. Do not be a jerk to children or peers. I will do the same if your comments in their meaning or delivery reflect historically oppressive comments said to marginalized debaters.

I flow -- we will rarely make eye contact in round so if I am no longer flowing, it means things have gone clear as mud. I’m not a Policy person in PF, they are separate for a reason. I am not a lay judge. But I won’t do the leaps of logic for you in round and I want what is argued and debated in round to matter than the judge’s own opinion. I expect to see adaptation in round *especially on mixed panels* as it shows a level of skill in competitors who can persuade to their judges' paradigms. Your lack of adaptability to a panel can hurt your speaker points, even if you had my flow - especially if you hit my red flags (above). My hope is that the experience is fun and rewarding for you, even if you don't win your round. :) Debate is an educational sport!

What I look for in a round:

Coherency, strong links, and evidence -- WHY are your impacts more urgent, critical, all around more relatable?? >>> speed for me, always. I believe public forum means *public* access — if you cannot explain or adapt to a lay judge, then do you understand what you’re debating yourself? I abhor grandstanding that sidelines partners or strokes egos; same for any rounds that chase agreeing on a definitions that go no where. Buzz words and speed that don't provide good solid ethos, pathos, logos won't mean much. I rarely call for evidence, so if you don’t then I will take it as agreeing to the other team’s use. I also believe that if there are fundamentally untrue things ("racism good") I will not accept them in round (truth over tech). Do not play devil’s advocate on people’s real lived experiences and trauma.

Teams should, explicitly, at the beginning determine how the round should be weighed!! Otherwise I will go with cost benefit

Don't steam roll your opponents during cross, especially if you ask them a question - interjecting so they cannot even respond to your question is no go for me. In your summary and final focus, I want to know why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, etc.

For congress: I want to hear refutation --> I want to see warrants (you are all students!) --> I want to see clash and I want advancement of the debate! I cannot stand questioning when the speaker is rude or dismissive of questions, even if they are simple or irrelevant questions. Congress is unique in its demand of decorum and if you cannot handle being a decent person in a role play of congress, then you need to reevaluate if you understand how congress in this activity functions.

reading this entire paradigm should give you a straight forward understanding of how to win my ballots, infer my values, and what to avoid in round.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK TO SHAKE MY HAND, ever. Lol. We learned things from the pandemic y’all. Fist bump or wave at me — it’s chill.

Don't be awful to each other. A little bit of snark is funny, but less important than being nice.

Make the arguments you'll make. Don't try and tailor it to me. I vote on what happened in the round, so worry about that. I vote on what you tell me to vote on so make that clear. I won't make connections for you. I won't remember the warrant of the link evidence you used in your first speech so if you want me to, extend it.

I love a good framework debate always. Even a little work on the framework, in an otherwise unframed debate, will be a major factor in how I weigh the round.

I don't flow cross. If you want me to know, care, or remember it, put it in a speech.

I am not at all worried about speed.

PF - I have been judging PF for around 7 years now. I am a judge that listens for Impacts on why your Impacts outweigh others. I am not a huge fan of speed. I am more concerned with the content of the speech rather than the amount of information given. I do understand the PF jargon. It is up to you to persuade me to vote for your side. I am not a huge fan of using FW and definitions as a weighing mechanism but will consider it if the other arguments are well balanced. Make sure to clearly state your Impacts and how these impacts link to the resolution.

Congress - I am looking for you to know the Robert's Rules of Order as well as seeing you participating in the debate by asking questions. In terms of your speech, I would like to hear a clear structure for your speeches. I want to hear the impacts of your points and I want you to be very familiar with your speeches as well. Make sure to bring up new arguments when a bill has been debated for awhile. If you speak later in the session, I want to hear clash with other representatives/senators. I also want to hear new information if you are representing the same point as someone who has spoken previously. I also track recency so I will note if a PO may miss a recency order. Make sure to maintain your professionalism during cross and during your speech. I will knock down a speaker if I feel they are being too aggressive during their speech or their cross.

LD - I do not have much experience judging LD currently. Please focus on argumentation and impacts rather than the jargon that goes along with LD. Tricks, theory, etc. will not work with me. Also, speed is discouraged during your speeches. Please make sure I can follow your supporting evidence and arguments. I am familiar with PF and judging PF.

Experience - I am a coach, though we specialize in congress and public forum. I have coached and judged LD before, though it has been a while (about a year). As for techniques and terminology, I know most of them -- and if not by name, through context.

General - Build me a good case - solid framework, well supported: convince me.

Evidence/data is good but is not my sole judging criteria. Logical argumentative techniques bolstered by evidence is your best route. Make sure I can follow (flow) your organization - signposts, transitions, etc.

That case should also be well-communicated. Impressive as a spitfire stream of data is, that's not effective communication. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas didn't spread; neither should you. I don't mind some speed as I know there's a lot you want/need to say, but again, make sure I can flow your argument. The faster you go, the less I can flow.

Be civil.

Judging/Win - I vote on argumentation and impacts first, evidence second, structure and delivery third, and civility final. A weak speaker with a solid organized case will win before a strong speaker with a weak or disorganized case.

I also don't disclose unless required and generally only give comments orally at the end of the round if something stands out as really weak or really strong and it is necessary to fix or continue into the next round.