Garen,+Adam

This is my first year coaching debate for Cornell University. I've also coached at UC-Berkeley (one year) and Dartmouth (four years). I debated in college at Dartmouth (four years) and in high school at The Blake School (four years).

I vote on a variety of arguments and rarely reject things said by debaters out of hand. That said, I will not vote on something that makes absolutely no sense to me simply because the debaters have said it. Debaters have the responsibility to respond to their opponents' arguments, but not everything said by a debater counts as an argument. For example, simply uttering the phrase "voting issue" does not turn an issue into an issue that I vote on.

Good debate depends fundamentally on argument resolution. Debaters often concentrate on constructing and rebutting arguments without resolving them, leaving the most important work for the judge. Debaters that resolve arguments will win my ballot and earn good speaker points.

Brief overviews that address meta-issues and make arguments that don’t fit elsewhere on the flow can help resolve issues in the debate, but long overviews tend to confuse things. A strong overview frames an issue: “They’ve conceded x and y; therefore, we only need to win z.” A weak overview merely summarizes arguments that belong else-where on the flow: “Here are all of our links, and here are all of our impacts.” A strong overview takes stock of the arguments a team will probably win and the arguments that team will probably lose: “Even if they win x, we still win because of y.” A weak overview presumes that one team will somehow win all of the arguments in the debate: “We’ll win x, y, and z; therefore, we’ll win the debate.”

I strongly prefer detailed and specific analysis to vague and sweeping generalizations. This preference applies to every type of argument I have ever encountered. I object to artificial and overly rigid division of debate along the lines of disadvantage/counterplan/case debate/kritik/topicality; for the most part, argument is argument is argument, and, the more specific, the better.

Debaters need not always read cards to support their arguments. I will not necessarily give more weight to an argument made by an "expert" than I will to an argument made by a debater. Still, reading cards often helps to establish an argument. For example, a card from President Obama will go a long way towards demonstrating President Obama's view on a subject.

All cards must have full source citations in order for me to consider them as cards. Full source citations include page numbers for cards from books, journals, magazines, etc. and full URL's for cards from the web. I will treat a card without a full source citation like I would treat analysis made by the debaters, but I will not consider arguments such as source qualification and recency absent a full source citation.

If a debater alters a card, he or she ought to make note of that alteration immediately. For example, if a debater reads only a portion of a card, that debater should mark the card during his or her speech, not after the speech or after the debate. I will not read a card after a debate if a debater failed to mark it immediately. Likewise, I will not consider evidence that a debater has paraphrased without vocally indicating that he or she has done so.

I do not enjoy judging rude debaters who attempt to forcefully establish a dominant position within a debate round.

Theory: The idea that judges should establish provisional rules for debate holds sway with me. A good offensive theory argument consists of four components: 1) A statement of the effect that the other team’s theoretical position would have on debate. 2) An explanation of why the other team’s theoretical position would have that affect on debate. 3) A reason why that affect would harm debate as an activity. 4) A comparative evaluation between that harm and the harm(s) caused by your own theoretical position.

Topicality: Debates about how the debate community should interpret and respond to the topic transcend particular debate rounds. Debate does not have a single purpose, and debaters can therefore use a variety of values to support the vision of the debate community they think I should promote with my ballot. As a default stance, I view the possibility of quality argumentation (including rigorous preparation) as the strongest value the debate community should uphold.

Counterplans: I err negative on most aspects of counterplan theory. The affirmative's ability to choose the focus of the debate necessitates substantial argumentative flexibility for the negative. The exception to this rule is a counterplan that "contradicts" another argument in the debate (e.g., a counterplan that links more to a disadvantage than the plan does).

Critiques: I default to the position of an individual expressing an opinion about what the United States federal government should do. This means that I do not believe that I am the United States federal government, but I do think that the question of what the United States Federal Government should do often has relevance in debates. I have played a number of other roles when judging debates. Debaters should make arguments about what they think I can and should do with my ballot. I would rather play the role of an active participant in the process of debate whose potentiality is not exhausted by evaluating what the debaters have done and handing out a "W" and an "L".