Colen+Kris

I judge policy for the most part, but I have become more and more interested in other forms of debate. #thankstraviscochran

I debated at Nevada Union High School in California for 4 years. I received a bid to the TOC and was decently successful. I am really open to anything (that is talked about more below). One thing I really want to emphasize: I love arguments that divorce themselves from traditional debate. My only preference is that you explain it well. I have read a lot of literature, but I always hold the debaters to do the work for themselves. I'm not going to like it when a 2nr/2ar just spits some buzzwords and then expect me to just grasp it. Arguments have simplicities, but they are also very complex (even the ptx disad). Explain it to me. Another real quick thing. You can do you impact work, but if there isn't good link work done, I'm not going to buy it. I'm going to make this clear. Most people conceptualize me to be a "K debater". I am flexible and went for the CP/DA in high school too, so you do you. All I want is a reason why I'm voting for you. I will get your arg, but it is your job to explain it to me.

Speaker Point Evaluation

30 – perfection

29.5 - top 5 speaker at the tournament

29 - damn good speech

28 - i'm impressed

27 - dece

26.5 - you need to work on a few things.

Argumentation:

Granted all of my 2nrs this year were the K, but I am definitely open. I can go for a politics disad and counterplan. I think there is a lot of value in arguments that have to deal with the political sphere as well as arguments that challenge the underlying assumptions of a teams argument. Always remember: an argument consists of a Claim, Ground, and Warrant. The fundamentals will get you far.

Topicality/Theory

I default to reasonability - the only way that you get an internal link to competing interpretations is if you prove contextual abuse. If you go for condo, you better have some reason why that specific round was abusive. Don't be scared to go for condo though. I think in the context of theory I am probably more likely to evaluate truth>tech because all of these precedent arguments never have a logical conclusion.

Framework

I've recently become more okay with this argument. I go for it. I've pick multiple teams up on it. I'm going to break this up into two different, i guess, forms of framework: 1) Theoretical framework --- not opposed to it, but I want more than a "you made debate hard". I want a you made debate impossible. A good example of this is I was judging an aff last weekend at Golden Desert and the 1nc strat to this new aff was f/w, cap, and a real bad case strategy. That was because it was impossible to debate the aff that doesnt talk about ocean in a way that is suited for the rez. If this is true, then I see a reason that voting negative could set a precedent. It made the 1NC strategy impossible in relation to being good. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2) State good --- this is the framework I go for. I think that if you're going to win this debate you need to win three thing. You need to win that 1) The state is inevitable 2) The state is good and 3) that the state is accessible to whatever the 1AC talks about (i.e anti-blackness isn't ontological which means they can still have agency in the context of a political system like the United State's).

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Disad

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I like a good disad debate. I'm down with any type of disad. Politics all the way to dedev. I want a clear impact extended and a clear link. I find myself judging too many debates where the 2nr is just great on the impact work, but not the link work. Fiat doesnt solve the link.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Counterplans

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I like them go ahead and read them. I usually buy the framing of sufficiency but thats because Brooke Erickson told me to. Also super specific counterplans are kind of cool. I like them.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Kritiks

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">My favorite argument. If you're the 2n I'm going to hold you to a high threshold of explaining the argument. I learned how to go for the K when judges held me to a higher threshold, so I think it is best for me to continue the tradition. Read what you want

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">"whacky arguments"

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">if you wanna read timecube, wipeout, spark, ect. I'm down. I like arguments and the universe is inherently absurd. Do something fun with it. But don’t do it for fun. Make it an argument. I’ll also hold you to a high threshold if you go for it.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Performance <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I read a performance aff in college. I get the jist of these arguments. I guess I can’t really give you advice until I have witnessed your performance.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Case Debate: <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I actually am a pretty big fan of case debates. There is something about going for heg bad in the 2nc that can really wake me up. One pet peeve I have and I managed to witness in a debate once was 8 minutes of impact defense. Don’t do that. Just don’t. Give me an offensive reason to vote for you.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">extra notes

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">1. references to the league will get you higher speaks

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2. jokes

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">3. dont be a dick

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4. good luck!