MacLean Andrews—Gonzaga Prep

I debated policy in high school and NPDA/NPTE parli at Point Loma. I then coached NPDA/NPTE at PLNU. I am now the Director of Forensics at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA. I mostly coach and judge high school CX and LD now. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round or email me if you have questions while filling out pref sheets (first initial last name at gprep.com)

1.Speaker points

1. 28-29.9 usually.

2.Critical Arguments

1. I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments but nothing will make me cringe more than a bad K debate. In the end it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me what framework I am to use to evaluate the round.

3.Topicality.

1. I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I used to say that I have a fairly high threshold for T but I am finding myself voting for it more and more. If it is the best strategy you have to win the round go for it.

4.Theory

1. I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important.

5.Weighing Arguments

1. I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.
2. I appreciate it when weighing is done in the speeches. The last thing you want is for me to have to weigh your arguments for you.

7.Random Thoughts

1. Speed is great if clear.
2. The round is for the debaters, do what you have to do to win. I will try to adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
3. Impact calc wins debates
4. Debate should be fun.

Congress:

In Congress, I am simply looking for the elements of a good speech and good ideas. A speaker should be clear and utilize the tools of rhetoric. They should be cordial and involved in the round, even when they are not speaking. An ideal speech would have evidence and a clear line of thought.

For Presiding officers, they should have good organization, knowledge of the rules of order, and leadership qualities. They should set the tone for the round.

Lincoln Douglass:

In LD, I vote based on values, voting issues, and impacted arguments.

The value should be the focus and there should be a strong sense of clash.

I expect voting issues to be provided in the final speech. I will vote on whichever voting issues are clearer or more persuasive.

Every argument should be impacted-should have some real-world significance. Your argument should matter, and you should make that crystal clear.

Public Forum:

In PF, I vote based on quality evidence, voting issues, and impacted arguments.

Your arguments should be based on evidence which you represent well. Prove what you are saying and make your arguments strong.

I expect voting issues to be provided in the final speech. I will vote on whichever voting issues are clearer or more persuasive.

Every argument should be impacted-should have some real-world significance. Your argument should matter, and you should make that crystal clear.