Cooper,+William


 * William Cooper **

Lecturer in Instructional Communication, University of Kentucky Executive Director, Kentucky High School Speech League

Associate Director of the UK Tournament of Champions--Speech NFL Two-diamond Coach

formerly of Manchester Essex Regional HS, MA, and Arthur L. Johnson HS, NJ.

Revised for The Glenbrooks 2014

I am open to all effective argumentation, but make sure you are clear when using more densely worded cards. I should not have to fill in the steps of your argument. Likewise, tell me where on the flow you are; I can follow you all around the flow, but....guide me and your opponent with you; if we lose you, you may very well lose. Road-maps and signposts are both welcome.

No burdens are inherent to Lincoln-Douglas Debate. All burdens arise in the context of the round, as does any issue of 'time-skew'. I pay attention to burdens, over/underviews, and definitions--I vote on the easiest way out of the round.

Speaker points are simple, and my scale is based on my expectations for a given tournament. Absent any tournament rule to the contrary, I start at 26.5 points, and go up and down from there. I do consider both the tournament and the division in awarding points. I don't expect to give many 30s during a season.. A 30 means I felt "WOW" at the end, or someone pulled off some tour-de-force of public speaking.

I pay attention to definitions, observations, burdens, overviews, and underviews. These need to be addressed--many times one sentence can take care of each of these. "That argument is completely ridiculous because ....." is a response I'd love to hear, especially if the .... is under 10 words.

__**DO NOT OPPRESS YOUR OPPONENT. OPPRESSION WILL REDUCE SPEAKER POINTS, POSSIBLY TO ZERO, AND MAY RESULT IN AN AUTOMATIC DROP.**__

Critical/identity arguments are welcome, but are rebuttable. Rebut them. The "Role of the Ballot" is an argument just like any other.

Theory arguments are based on something which happens in the round, including the opponent's definitions and/or interpretation of the resolution. Calling one's opponent on a theory violation is a call for judge intervention. You are asking me to decide if something is fair or unfair. I will do so. Tell me--briefly--why it's unfair, and then do what you can to win the round on substance. I will apply the least onerous penalty for an accurately-called theory violation based on 'fairness' or 'education'. Dropping the debater is not the only remedy for a true call; give me the alternatives you'd want me to use, or I'll use my own sense of fairness to craft the remedy. In other words, don't necessarily go to 'reject the debater'.

If you choose to argue from a very specific stance in the round, you are welcome to do so. Note, however, that an opponent who establishes a general truth/validity on her side of the flow will defeat the use of a specific focus. One can not establish a general truth from a single example--even if the truth is, in fact, true for that single example. That said, I have voted for plans in the past when the round has gone that way.

If you are going to talk rapidly, talk clearly. If you are not clear, I will stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it's not on the flow. I will fold my arms across my chest. It is your job to adjust.

I will be very unsympathetic to arguments which say, either explicitly or implicitly, that we should 'ignore' or 'disregard' the US Constitution. Having sworn four oaths to defend and protect the Constitution, I find I can't accept an argument which asks me to ignore it. Make good solid constitutional arguments, not just brush it aside.