McCobin,+Alexander

Alexander McCobin Paradigm

I graduated high school in 2004 and competed on both the local and national circuit. I will be graduating this spring from the University of Pennsylvania. In my first two years of college, I judged fairly regularly, but since then I have worked more on the administrative side of the debate community than down in the trenches (Penn LBC Tournament Director, Perspectives Debate Inc. Founder and Director, Philadelphia Debate Institute Director). My philosophy is pretty simple. I am here to adjudicate what happens in the round. The most important thing you can know about me is that I do what you tell me to do in the round and I don’t enjoy doing anything other than that. If you don’t tell me to vote on an argument or on a certain part of the flow, it is unlikely that I’m going to do so. I will gladly write the ballot word for word what you say in the 2AR if you tell me why you win an argument, why it means you win the resolution, and why your opponent can’t beat it. If you don’t give me a warrant, a link to the resolution or weigh it against your opponent’s arguments, you’re asking me to make a personal evaluation on what’s going on, which opens the door to intervention. I like debaters who do the work for me. CRITICAL ARGUMENTS: I am fine with critical argumentation and think it can be very interesting if run well. So long as the argument clearly links to the resolution, is warranted, and has a meaningful impact, I’m fine with it. Note: I am a philosophy major, but of an analytic background and while I am sympathetic to some of the continental work I have read, I am overall still analytic. I hold continental philosophy to the same rigorous standard as analytic work, which in debate means that what you’re reading needs to still make sense given a straightforward question and shouldn’t just be a random link or have nothing to do with whether I should affirm or negate. SPEED: I have no problem with speed. However, make sure you enunciate and SIGNPOST very clearly for me so I know where I am on the flow. If I’m staring at you or my pen isn’t writing much, it means I’m not following you. THEORY: I’m fine with it. So long as you don’t begin to contradict yourself and instead run theory in a consistent manner that gives me an overall means of interpreting the round, I’m OK. Just make sure to explain how you’re using it and give me a substantive reason to accept your interpretation. And winning theory doesn’t mean I’m going to vote for you. The best theory in my mind is the kind that tells me how to interpret later arguments in the round. If you want me to vote on theory, then tell me why I should. Like all other arguments, there needs to be a good reason why I vote aff/neg off it. IMPACTS/WEIGHING: I mentioned this above, but will reiterate it because this is very important to me. The better job you do at weighing arguments and not only winning the line by line, but telling me how an individual point fits in with the grand scheme of the debate round, the more likely you are to win. This means making sure to articulate the impact of arguments. It takes more than just winning an argument and asserting “therefore I win” to get my ballot. Clarifying the criterion for the round makes this much easier. But if the criterial debate ends up going sour, make sure to just articulate that you have impacts still and why they will defeat the impact of anything your opponent says.