Collins,+Fred


 * BACKGROUND IN DEBATE:** High School late Sixties--College Southeastern State Durant 71-75 intercollegiate debate four years NDT 1974, Other placings include 3rd Wake Forest 1972, (tie 10th overall speaker) 3rd USC 1974, Quarters Baylor (1974?)


 * POST COLLEGE** Coached CX, LD, on volunteer basis 26 years, (My REAL job is as a trial attorney) 3x State CX champion Oklahoma #|Class 4A 1X, LD State Champion. Judged lots of rounds. This year (2014-15) not so many.


 * JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:** Primarily concerned with argumentation analytics. I really do not have any biases about the kind of argument (i.e. CP, DA, K, Case, Framework, Topicality) but am greatly concerned with the #|application of the argument. It is my belief that ANY argument may become paramount in a debate round depending on how is it pursued by the participants. And that is the key to me---the Participants making the argument and #|applying it by demonstrating how it is important and what it does by way of impacting the opponents' positions.

I like to think that I can handle the spread (because that is what we did in college), but I am very very strict in this sense--if I cannot understand what is being said, I will NOT flow it NOR will I give an oral indication that I am not understanding it. Instead you might observe me put my pencil down or quit typing on my laptop.

As might be understood from the above, I am not much of a fan of generic argumentation. I do not as a general rule think that a generic DA for instance carries as much impact as a case specific DA. Also, impact scenarios in DA argumentation become more meaningful if real world impact as opposed to debate world impact is demonstrated.

Admittedly, I am not as well versed on K argumentation as I would like to be as my knowledge of some philosophers is not as deep as I would like but I find this kind of argument fascinating, and if well developed, I enjoy. I am ok with Cap, Anthropocentrism, Bio, Language K, and the common garden variety--however, if it is something esoteric, I probably have not read it.

CP argumentation is fine. Just set your framework for it clearly.

Also like solvency argumentation when appropriate.

T is ok with me, however, it needs explaining beyond simple words in stds or voters. If education, for instance, is used---please explain and #|apply.

Anything you might want to know in terms of specifics just ask prior to round. I will give you the best #|answer I can in response.