Coffman,+Christopher

I debated for the University of Central Oklahoma and now coach at Edmond Santa Fe High school. This is my 2nd year of coaching and 4th year of judging.

I am open to any and all arguments as long as you defend them well. Any argument exists as it is developed within the round, and nothing else. I truly have no preference when it comes to topicality, kritiks, counterplans, or the age old case/disad 2NR, and I suggest that the neg goes for the win with a position they know strongly, because I am generally more persuaded by strong analysis than just a block of cards. Although, do not read into that statement too strongly, good arguments have good supporting evidence as well as being backed by sound rationale.

Ultimately, I would describe myself as laid back, with a "debate is a game, I vote for who convinces me they won" type philosophy. Speed is fine, and I flow where you direct me to flow. Theory is also fine, and I have been persuaded by voting against things like multiple worlds and conditionality in the past, but you have to clearly illustrate your abuse story.