Coltin,+Kevin

I was the LD coach for Brophy Prep from 2009-2013, and now judge once in a blue moon.

I’m open to any type of argument. I look to whatever sort of standard is established in the round and then vote on whoever meets it better. I tend to think in terms of an offense/defense paradigm. Speed is fine. I like debaters who are smart, reasonable, and enjoyable to watch.

That’s the important stuff, but here’s a long rant with all my preferences and biases if you care:

Speed: Go as fast as you want.

Kritiks: In all honesty, I really like it when debaters run Ks, just because it’s more interesting than having to watch the umpteenth stock case compiled from the top three hits on JStor. Of course, you’re probably better off trying to win rounds rather than trying to keep me amused, so don’t run a K thinking it’ll make me predisposed to voting for you, because I’ll evaluate it the same as any other argument.

“Is there anything you absolutely won’t vote on?”: The NFL rules.

Presentation: I’m a sucker for jokes and witty analogies, and I probably value good speaking more than average. This just means you should be convincing and pleasant to listen to, and sound like a normal human being. It does not, however, mean you should talk s-l-o-w-l-y or act like you’re auditioning for The Great Debaters. A great way to make me dislike you right off the bat is to waste the first 30 seconds of your constructive with some personal example or Henry David Thoreau quote. I love debaters who are funny and clever and dislike ones who are rude or act like their poop doesn’t stink.

Crystallization: I don’t care if you label “voting issues,” but do be sure to impact, weigh, and give me even-if scenarios. Please explicitly extend warrants and impacts of any argument you are going for. You don’t want me to be searching my flow deciding whether I can even vote for an argument you’re clearly winning because you failed to extend it well.

Theory: Theory is fine, but: 1) I tend to view the resolution as a way to divide ground rather than as a truth statement. 2) I think theory in general is the most subjective type of argument, because while few people feel passionately about, say, plea bargaining, even the most fair-minded judges have preconceived notions about how debate should be. So, if you’re going to bet the round on theory please make sure that you’re winning it pretty clearly and answering back all your opponent’s responses. I will gladly vote on theory if I think you’re winning it, but I can’t guarantee that I’ll view the theory debate the same way you do if it’s really close.

Spikes: I think the strategy of packing cases with lots of blippy definitions and framework preempts is probably bad for debate. Please don’t try to extend dropped, unwarranted blips and explode them in rebuttals. If you find yourself on the receiving end of this strategy, I’m receptive to arguments that (for example) new extrapolations in the 1AR justify new responses in the NR.

A couple other random things:

-I like it when debaters use CX strategically. It’s cool if you want to ask clarification questions during prep, but you do have to use all three minutes of CX for asking questions. -If you know me personally and your opponent clearly doesn’t, please don’t act buddy-buddy, call me by my first name, etc. during the round. -FDR stood when he spoke, so you should too (unless you’re reading off a laptop and there’s no podium). -Have fun!