Cockroft,+Andrew

My default position is that debate is a contest between individuals attempting to prove something true or not true. What is required to prove a resolution true or untrue depends upon the meaning of the resolution and therfore is unique to the particular resolution. However, I am willing to accept arguments as to how we can assess it otherwise (i.e. a best justification or world comparison). But, these arguments for why we should not evaluate the truth but rather something else must be ground in the words of the resolution. For example, given the nature of certain topics concerning governmental action, we could argue that the res is a question of policy decisions and not necessarily an argument over if the gov’t can act just or not.

__//**Theory is cool, in fact, I really like good theory debates (this is a change from my previous stance).**//__ I default to reasonability unless told otherwise and if I am evaluating under competing interps I assume that it necessitates an RVI. So if you want competing interps but do not want it to be an RVI if the other side wins that they have the best interp, then argue so.

Further, I believe I can flow speed fairly well but I’m not the best flower. However, I believe that me missing an argument because a loss of attention is my fault and so I will not penalize the debater for it by not recognizing their argument. As such I’m willing to ask for stuff at the end of the round if I happen to miss something.

Also, the current practice of reading cards in response to cards needs to be refined. If one is to read counter evidence it is very important that you explain why I prefer yours over your opponent’s. If this is not done I will default to the first card that was read because it is functionally not responded to. This also applies to definitions and other interpretational issues. Thus, especially as the negative, one must actually respond to specific warrants or preclude them with responses.

Next, pomo and others schools of philosophy are fine, but if the arguments are really dense, or weak translations, then please slow down a little because I will hold you accountable otherwise. Also, if you are goin to claim that certain schools of thought are bad, please know what is entailed by that school of thought. Zizek is not a postmodernist, for example. In fact he dont like the pomo very much. Certain people can only be called postmodern in the way that you and I are postmodern, because chronologically we come after the moderns. And now for presumption. I feel the idea of presuming is arbitrary if not directed by the debaters. Thus, I am willing to listen to arguments for both sides for why I would presume. If not given an avenue for presumption but left in a situation where I do not have sufficient offense for either side I will assess the quality of arguments and vote on what requires the least amount of intervention.

Speaks usually range from 24 to 29.5. 30s are hard to come by. But most of all just have fun and think in rounds; don’t be assholes unless it serves a comedic purpose which is not at your opponent’s expense (i.e. if you’re friends then it may be permissible if that’s the only way you can communicate with each other). Also, I like seeing swagger in rounds, mainly because personality-less rounds tend to make me sleepy. So, dont treat me like I scoff at the idea of being assertive. But again, dont be an asshole.