Thank you for debating! It takes a lot of guts to get up in front of a stranger an argue like this. I was a high school debater in the 90’s in Texas and have judged a fair amount in the years since. Speech and debate are all about communication for me. I don't mind speaking at a moderate rate of speed, but if I cannot understand you, I will not flow you. If I don't flow you, I won't consider the arguments when I'm judging the round. Should you decide to spread in front of me, you will not be happy with the resulting speaker points.

When judging LD, I'm happiest hearing a nice package of how your contentions contribute to your criteria, to your value, and ultimately to the truth and falsehood of the resolution. I prefer more philosophy, but that can be challenging with these more practical resolutions. When it come to PF, I appreciate good, clear links and impacts that are well explained and warranted. It's not enough to say the other side will cause extreme poverty or death, show me how the other side gets there and, even better, how you prevent it. A few moments explaining that logic will go a long way toward getting you my ballot.

I am willing to hear almost any argument you want to run, but if you're going to run progressive argumentation, be very sure to clearly explain how it links to the resolution, as in a muddled round, that is where I will first look to decide. Please signpost, clearly show how things link across the flow, and show me how you win the round. In the final speeches, I am more interested in hearing what you think are the biggest issues in the round than to hear you try and sprint through a point-by-point, especially on the affirmative.

Not new to PF debate but appreciate debaters who are deliberate in telling me what contention is being addressed throughout the round. I believe PF should be accessible for anyone to judge, so if I can't hear you or you speak too quickly, I can't flow your argument. Make sure impacts are realistic, and weighed in terms of probability, magnitude, and time. Finally, and most importantly, honesty matters and evidence should be used to support your cases and statements. Examples and real-world applications are your friends.

Liberty University '04-'08
Policy Debate Coach @ Theodore Roosevelt High School `14-`18

contact me via email at cpmccool at gmail dot com

Hello debaters, coaches, or other judges interested in my judge philosophy. I feel that the debate round is a unique environment where almost any argument can be utilized so long as it is justifiable. I say "almost any" because some arguments are highly suspect like "racism good" or "torture good". What I mean by "justifiable" is that the argument made, to me, becomes more persuasive when coupled with good evidence. What follows are my preferences on theory, Topicality, CPs, Kritiks/Performance, and Style.

Theory
I do not consider my mind to be tabula-rasa (i.e., blank slate). To me, the most persuasive theory arguments contain a claim, some support, and an impact. Just saying "voting issue" does not make it so - I need to be convinced that voting for your interpretation is justifiable, which means that I can cogently explain to the opposing team why they were deficient and should lose the round.

Topicality
See my comments on Theory. I like it when Neg can show that the Aff's interpretation is bad for debate. Like many other judges, I am annoyed by messy T debates. The side that clashes the most, organizes the T debate, and shows why their interpretation is better for debate will most likely win my ballot.

CPs
I am a huge fan of creative and competitive CPs. If Neg can give a couple of reasons why the CP solves better/faster than the Aff, I feel more comfortable finding that the net-benefit outweighs case. The perm is a test of competitiveness. I will not consider the perm a legitimate policy option unless there is some good evidence read to support it as such.

Kritiks/Performance
I think that Aff should have a written plan text, but does not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. Aff, if you think that USFG is bad, be ready to defend the theory onslaught by the Neg. I prefer the policy making framework, but understand the value of the K and Performance debate. The key for me is justification. Make sure you clash with opposing and show why voting for you is net-beneficial for debate.

Style
I do have some preferences regarding style that you should consider in order to obtain one or two extra speaker points from me: 1) Clarity outweighs speed - it's ok to spread your opponent, just make sure you pick the arguments you are winning and go for them in the rebuttals 2) I lean negative - I believe that Aff must thoroughly defend the plan. My standard is that it should be more probable than not that the plan is a good idea in order to vote Aff. 3) Civility and charm go further for me than pretension and hate. Being classy and focusing on the arguments and generally making everyone feel good during round are skills that are valuable and actually useful in the real world. 4) Have fun and enjoy this amazing sport! Energy can be communicated through your arguments and when it does, it makes me want to listen.