Debate background:
-Four years of debate at Shawnee Mission Northwest
-Current fourth year debater at the University of Kansas
-Assistant Coach at Blue Valley Southwest

Last Updated: 7/04/16

Top level stuff:

1. I believe the affirmative must read a topical plan. 
2. Tech over truth – I prefer clear technical debates. A dropped argument is a true argument. 
3. An argument must contain a claim and a warrant.
4. I tend to evaluate debates through an offense/defense paradigm but I am willing to assign 100% risk of a case takeout or a 0% risk of disad.
5. I would be willing to listen to arguments about why lying during disclosure is a voting issue.
6. I will not vote on a microaggression. That is a question of speaker points and not which team did the better debating.

On specific arguments:

K Affs – I have a strong bias in favor of framework-type arguments that the affirmative should have an instrumental defense of the resolution. In a world where the negative does not make this argument, this becomes irrelevant. To deploy a critical affirmative in front of me that does not defend a plan, it would be best to show concrete reasons why your affirmative is topically germane, does not reduce ground, and does not explode limits.

Topicality – Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I tend to default to competing interpretations but can be persuaded otherwise. I find topical version of the aff arguments very compelling so negatives should make sure to deploy those arguments. I prefer that you have evidence for your interpretation in order to make sure it is predictable and grounded in the topic literature. Limits debates are important for both sides.

Counterplans – I tend to believe that counterplans ought to be textually and functionally competitive. I will not kick the counterplan for the negative unless explicitly instructed by the negative in the 2NR that the status quo is an option.

Theory – Usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I have an overwhelming bias in favor of conditionality and it is an extreme uphill battle to get me to vote for the argument unless it is conceded or forces egregious aff contradictions.

Theory arguments I tend to lean aff on:
-Consult
-Delay
-Word PICs
-Object Fiat

Disads – My preferred strategy as a 2N is DA + CP, but I also very much enjoy DA + Case debates. Turns case arguments are very strategic and should be deployed by the negative.

Case – I am a big fan of case debates because there is so much opportunity for clash which tends to boost speaker points. If you can minimize the risk of the aff your chances of winning will increase substantially. I am also a fan of impact turns and I enjoying listening to those debates.

Kritiks – You should err on the side of me not being familiar with your K lit so you should have clear explanations of links and the alt. Ks with specific links are great. Affs need to answer dirty K tricks. I do not find “Kritiks are cheating” arguments very compelling. Affirmatives should also have a defense of their ontology/epistemology/reps. Framing (what I should prioritize, what impacts matter, etc) is critical for both teams if they want to get ahead in this debate. 

Paperless – Prep stops when you are done prepping and are ready to save your speech to a flash drive.

Be respectful of your opponents. You can be aggressive and competitive but speaker points will suffer if you cross the line and become disrespectful.

Max McCarty

I debated for a year in college at UTD for a Year, Coached at LFS for 3 years and now at Blue valley North. In HS I debated at BVSW and consitantly cleared at TOC tournaments my senior year.

Put me on the email chain maxwell[dot]mccarty[at]gmail[dot]com

Tech > Truth

• I have a lot less topic experience/knowledge than I have had on previous topics. I will definitely need more explaining of things than people who worked at or taught at camps over the summer. This will still be true throughout the season as I spend less time thinking about the topic than in previous years. Simply because I am less involved.
• Over the last couple years of judging I have noticed a trend of people flying through analytics at top speed off the speech doc, if you want me to flow them it is in your best interest to slow down here. If you are doing this and not realizing it my body language will definitely tell you I am not flowing.
• I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. Serious, good faith concerns should be brought to the tournament administration, not to the judge of a debate, if you have issue before the round, tournament, etc.
• not great/terrible for K v K debates, would rather be upfront for you. Doesn’t mean that I won't try my hardest for you all but it has never been in my realm of expertise, link/perm work is a must, with more explanation than you usually might do

T: As mentioned I have little to no experience with this topic, for T debates that means I need more explanation of what what they competing versions of the topic look like. I think the internal link and impact level of these debates often gets lost, and because of that I found reasonability to be more compelling than I used to in some debates.

Theory: I would certainly prefer to judge debates about the substance of the aff vs the neg, however theory debates are inevitable and here are some quick thoughts:

• I think more teams should go for it, but it should be unique to the debate. I find general arguments of copy and pasted blocks through each speech rather boring and repetitive, and will often conclude there is little offense to reject another team or argument on this. Ways you can fix this, make it unique to the debate ie: "it is not just that they read 4 condo, but the nature of all 4 "doing the whole aff", in tandem with how "CP competition works on this topic makes it uniquely bad..."
• I do generally find condo to be good, doesn’t mean I wont vote for it but it should have nuance to it vs passed down blocks.

FW:

I generally think affs should be about hypothetical government action on the topic. However that is my opinion and I will do my best to leave it at the door. I tend to vote 50/50 in these debates here are something that may be helpful for you.

• I generally find arguments about fairness compelling vs arguments about truth testing etc.

• I think clash in these debates are good. Teams need to apply their arguments to what has happened in round. This means you probably shouldn't be reading the same blocks every debate. If your aff this means a 1ar that is contextual to the block. If your neg this means actually answering the DAs the 2ac read etc.
• round vision and the ballot: I should know what voting aff or neg does. A lot of the time this is likely done via impact calc but can often be lost and makes it much harder. By the end of the 2ar I shouldn’t have to re read the 1ac to determine that or by the end of the 2nr I should have to re read the 1nc to determine that etc.

DAS:

They are great, Impact calc is great it should be done! Link arguments are only as specific or generic as you make them. If you read a generic one that is fine, but spin can make it more specific etc. Same is true with link and internal link defense.

CP:

I love them, they should probably compete with the aff. That can certainly be a debate to be had, but generally I find that in debates where teams are technically equal the truth of the argument typically shapes that tech.

Ks:

I think of Ks as a cp with a net benefit, the more specific it is to the aff the more likely I am to vote on it. I’m not well read in lit at all so explanation goes a long way. I think you should have a somewhat specific link to the aff. I do feel like at the end of the debate the aff should get to weigh the 1ac, in what context is up for debate but im very hard to convince otherwise. Link of omissions are nonstarters. My advice is go for what you are most comfortable with and I will do my best as a judge to leave my biases at the door and evaluate the debate.

Case debate:

This is is a lost art. I think more teams need to be willing to engage with the aff. This can be done on a substance level, impact turns, smart analytical arguments, theory, etc. I have no issue with the neg reading as many offcase args as you want, but if you are doing so at the expense of a well developed case debate than don’t be surprised if I conclude a high risk of the aff, when there is little engagement with it.

Other things/pet peeves

-I think there is a fine line between being an ass and being competitive. If done well your speaks will be rewarded but if done wrong you will not be happy with them rule of thumb don’t be an ass, be respectful and have fun.

-physically mark your cards. if you do not and another team asks for a marked copy I will make you take prep within my arbitrary judgement of what that is.

- you must physically read the rehighlighting of the other teams cards simply saying “I have inserted a rehighlighting here” is not an argument in any sense please read the card. The only exception to this is if it is a small part of a card and you have explained the argument it makes in your speech.

-Clipping will result with a loss with 0 speaks. I do follow along in speech docs so if I see you doing it I won’t hesitate. If you call someone out for it you must have audio evidence of it.