Colella,+Cameron

toc __**Background**__
 * High School:** St. Ignatius (Cleveland, OH)
 * College:** University of Michigan
 * Debating Experience:** 4 years HS debate (ToC circuit), 2 years college debate (NDT qualifier freshman year), coach for Harker, coach for Michigan, led top Seniors lab at Michigan in 2013
 * Judging Experience:** Various high school tournaments, 2013 ACHM 7 Week Seniors lab leader, DUDL tournaments
 * Rounds Judged Total:** 300+
 * Rounds Judged on Current HS Topic (Oceans):** ~15
 * Updated:** 11/29/2014


 * Andrew Jennings thinks I'm cool. Steven Wood cares about what I think. I judge Chris Stone's hs kids regularly. I've now judged over 300 debates.**

=__Shortest__=
 * MUST READ**

I'm equally open to any argument with a claim and a warrant. I do my best to set aside all predispositions before judging a round. I've debated competitively on the local, state, regional, and national (NFL, ToC, NDT) circuits, and am accordingly prepared to judge any round (critical, policy, performance, etc.).

=__**Short**__=
 * This will suffice for judge preference evaluation.**

__Tech__

 * Speed:** As fast as you want. Obviously, be clear.


 * Is flashing prep?** No, unless restricted by tournament guidelines. If I'm judging JV or Novice, prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.


 * Disclosure/Oral Critique:** Yes, unless restricted by tournament guidelines. An oral critique is my preferred method of disclosure.


 * Speaker Points**: Fundamentally a reflection of how well you communicate. Thus prioritize the following (in no particular order): structure, organization, efficiency, intelligence, quality (of arguments), judge connection (basically encompasses humor, sportspersonship, not being a jerk, etc.). Additionally note that I include "doing cool stuff" in the "judge connection" category, because it makes me enjoy the round more - I'll provide an updated, non-exclusive list of stuff that I haven't yet (but would like to see) in my Long Version. Average is somewhere around 27.5 or 28.

__Debate__

 * Meta:** Do what you want. I have no preference, and will evaluate all arguments (consisting of a claim and a warrant) equally.


 * Argumentation:** The pseudo-exception to my blank slate paradigm is baseline argument quality: your argument must* consist of a claim and a warrant. See the Long Version's Argumentation section for an explanation of the asterisk.


 * Tech v. Truth**: Tech. I will not interject any perceived truth into the round.


 * Spin v. Evidence**: Spin. I'll be very clear: //a logical argument made by a debater will always beat an assertion from a card, however qualified, if that assertion does not include the debater's logical explanation////.// Obviously, if there's a dispute over evidence quality and the text of a card/conclusions of a study/whatever become an issue in the debate, I'll call for cards, but most of the time I call for no evidence. This means I am extremely adverse to decisions that conclude that there is zero risk of anything (be it case, a disad, an impact, etc.) unless an argument is explicitly dropped, in which case I'm more than willing to vote on zero risk.


 * Try or Die**: I'm easily persuaded that Try or Die logic is silly (presumption is something that probably happens at a percentage risk higher than zero [see Long version for an explanation]), but //will default to it//. This means two things: first, if there is a risk of an impact on one side of the debate greater than zero, and zero risk on the other side of the debate, I will vote for the impact (absent, of course, the argument that try or die is bad); second, and more importantly, if one side wins that extinction is //100%// //inevitable//, and they access a chance to solve that extinction event while the other side accesses no solvency for that extinction event, I will vote for the former. Again, see the Long version for an explanation.


 * K v. Policy**: I can judge both, and will do so willingly. I went for Consult CPs and Nietzsche in high school a lot, and I liked writing tricky PICs, so I guess I know what's up on both ends of the spectrum.


 * Theory:** There are no rules (until debaters/tournament officials make them). For "minor" things (new argument threshold, condo, etc.), that alone should suffice. For "major" things (speech times, number of speeches, ethical obligations, etc.), it is imperative that you read the "Theory" section of the Long Version below.


 * Evaluation (includes impact comparison, framing, etc.):** Your responsibility. I've never participated in a round where there was literally no analysis on how the judge should evaluate the round, so I'm not too sure what my default is. Perhaps that makes me a non-interventionist idealist, but I've never encountered this situation in six years of competitive debate, so I'm just not sure how I'd deal with it.


 * Performance:** I have limited experience with these arguments, but really enjoy watching/debating/judging these rounds, PROVIDED the debaters are organized and effective at communication. The biggest issue I've encountered in these debates is lack of an explicit, impacted, and interactive (explicit interaction with the opponents' arguments) reason to vote. I maintain my philosophy of not interjecting predispositions - you tell me how to evaluate the round, and I'll do it. So, maybe my inexperience means I'm not the best judge for you, but I will evaluate the debate according to the debate, so I'm pretty sure I'd be alright.


 * Other strategies (no plan text/k the rez/irony/etc.):** See Performance..


 * Bleeding-edge Debate Practices:** This includes things like judge interaction (see Scott Phillips' [|article] on debaters asking judges questions during speeches on The3NR). I'm all for new practices, but reserve the right to refuse any new practices in-round (I will notify you verbally).

=__**Long**__=
 * This is if you really care about what I think about debate.**


 * Pre-Philosophy Notes:** I've always thought of myself as a judge who sets aside all predispositions before judging a round - this means argument preferences, biases, and other external influences should ideally be of no concern. That being said, as I am human, I'm sure I have some biases. I'll be honest, though, that I'm not quite sure what those are. **Long story short:** I'll be totally honest - I'm not sure what I like, and what I like shouldn't influence my decision anyway, so do what you do best/what you want to do. I'll do my best to judge it without letting any subconscious drives of mine interfere.

However, I know that's not satisfying for the majority of you. Thus, I'll do my best to extrapolate below, based (for now) on how I debated in high school and my general thoughts about debate.

<>


 * Argumentation:** Currently, this is just an explanation of why there is an asterisk next to "must" in the Short Version's Argumentation section. I say that an argument must consist of a claim and a warrant because this is a baseline bias of my understanding of my own rational logical process - I cannot process arguments without claims and warrants. HOWEVER, if a challenge to this logical process is developed, I am of course willing to not only hear but employ that process. My language here is only vague because I currently have no conception of what this alternate process could/would be, and thus default to processing arguments by claim and warrant.

Now, what I consider a "warrant" (and I start with warrant because I'm pretty sure "claim" is unnecessary) is a more interesting question. I really haven't made up my mind here, as I think there are certain levels of arbitrariness inherent in any determination. However, I'll go with the dictionary definition: something that gives assurance of something. My interpretation of this definition is that a warrant must provide substantive assurance of the claim, best understood through example: if a team says "condo is illegitimate, it's a voting issue, strat skew, time skew," I see two claims and four other words. If a team says "condo is illegitimate, it's a voting issue, guarantees contradiction which skews 2AC strategy, makes us spend time debating ourselves which skews time," I see two claims and two warrants that substantiate those claims (I also see a hastily created example, and a terrible 2AC Condo Bad shell). Here, I'm going to have to cop out, and take the Justice Stewart approach - I know it when I see it. When in doubt, feel free to ask me (yes, even in the middle of your speech) if I consider something an argument, or if I understood a claim and a warrant.


 * Theory:** This is an area that I have thought much about, and have come to very few conclusions, other than that I think weird debates are cool debates, and, if debated properly (if you make it easy/interesting to evaluate), are immensely educational for all parties involved and fun to judge.

I referenced this section in the Short Version above - I know that technically violates the first statement of the Short Version (the one about the Short Version sufficing for judge philosophies), but whatever, this is important. I think debate is cool. I think that the especially cool part of debate is the way that rounds evolve (the way that debate evolves, really). Because of that, I think creativity is immensely important, and I think that in order to maximize creativity, rules must be minimized. The next section of this will be divided into two parts: tournament rules, and debater rules.

__Tournament Rules__ Despite the above, I respect the authority of those that operate the tournament, and thus will conform to guidelines provided to me (some tournaments regulate speech time, mandate the number and order of speeches/speaker, etc.). It is the debater's responsibility to know the rules. I will know the rules, and I will penalize rule-breakers according to tournament rules. In the case that there is no guideline on penalization, I default to debater-made rules.

__Debater Rules__ Briefly, the legitimacy of things like 3NRs, 10-minute 2NCs, and multiple conditional advocacies is not in question until the debaters put it into question. To preface this section, I'd like to note that (as of right now, and this //may// change) debater-made rules will not overrule explicit tournament rules. Debater rules include things that are not specifically outlined in tournament guidelines. These are pretty straightforward: if the tournament rules don't say every person has to speak, every person doesn't have to speak, unless the other team wins the argument that every person has to speak. Debate is, fundamentally, shaped by debaters, and thus if a compelling argument is made to exclude a certain practice, that practice shall be excluded. This also means that punishment is an argument - dictate what should be done to reprimand the other team for breaking the rule that you think should be established, and provide analysis on why that resolves the abuse done in-round (essentially akin to the determination of status as a voting issue or a reason to reject the argument on any CP theory debate).

Please note that this is not a list of stuff that I am more likely to vote on, just things that I think would be cool to see. Let me reiterate: __//**DOING THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT MORE LIKELY THAT YOU WILL WI**////**N**//__. In fact, as some of these things are probably objectively harder to do, doing some of these things will probably make it //more difficult// to win, despite the fact that I will always evaluate the debate objectively. Honestly, some of this stuff is probably on here just because I thought to myself "what if someone did ?"
 * Stuff I Haven't Seen Yet (But Would Like To See):**

Additionally note that this list is not exhaustive, and thus these are not the //only// cool things you can do.
 * Aff that K's the resolution
 * Irony aff
 * Arguments against traditional speech times/speech order
 * Interaction with judge
 * Defense of a really arbitrary framework interpretation
 * Defense of "morally repugnant" arguments
 * Refusal to debate
 * Mutual agreement not to debate/to do something else
 * Round where everyone collectively ignores this paradigm and assumes that I am the president (seriously, this would be awesome - somebody do this, please)
 * Alternatively, assign me an arbitrary role, and debate as if I am that person and you are presenting a plan to that person. Note that in this scenario, fiat is constrained by my fictional powers (this would be even cooler, and possibly overlaps with the "arbitrary framework interpretation" note above)
 * Duo Interp