Cole,+Eric

Name: Eric Cole Affiliation: University of West Georgia/Little Rock Central Years Judging: 5

I have written a few of these before and I always find them to be lacking. In the end, if you want an idea of how I judge debates…it is easily summed up with “I judge the debate in front of me”. I have voted on every type of argument you can think of, so whatever you folks want to do is cool with me. In the end, these rounds are for you guys…my job is to make a decision based on what you want to do. You want to roll with Politics/CP?…go for it. You want to read a bunch of Baudrillard cards or interrogate your relationship to the topic? That’s cool. I think the most important part of my view as a judge is that the team that best explains how the arguments in the round inter-relate generally win the debate (this is particularly true of those “clash of the civilizations” type debates where its goofy aff vs. framework or framework vs. goofy K). I do my best to divorce any predispositions I have from my decision making, but I sometimes have no choice than to fall back on my own thoughts and predispositions to reconcile some debates because neither team really did the work necessary. I do not want to do this, so explain your args well and you’re golden…if you don’t, you may not be pleased with the results. I will talk a little bit about how I view certain aspects of debate and some tips for debating in front of me to make the experience more enjoyable for everyone.

Topicality – I really enjoy a good T debate. As a general rule, I view T as a question of competing interpretations unless another standard is put forth and won as the way to evaluate it (reasonability, etc). However, most T debates are super blippy and lack any depth whatsoever. If you want to go for T in front of me, have a well-crafted, specific T violation and you’ll have to do more than shadow extend it in the 1NR. Explain the abuse in more than buzzwords and keep the debate as clean as possible. I judge debates (generally) by the flow, so if the debate gets messy…it makes my job much harder.

Theory – I have yet to hear a great theory debate, but I know that sometimes you have to go for it and don’t be afraid to do so in front of me. I do, however, have a pretty high threshold for voting on theory unless its dropped (assuming that the dropped arg meets the basic criteria of having both a claim AND a warrant). I tend to err neg on CP theory, although I am much more easily convinced to vote on theory against things like consult CPs and the like. Doesn’t mean you can’t run them in front of me though…sometimes you just have to ask Russia/Japan/etc. I do err towards the aff on perm theory (both K and CP) and against super vague alternatives. I also think that instead of going for theory as a cheap shot, it is often, strategically, more sophisticated to use the theory debate as a way to justify abusive answers (such as Perm: Do the Counterplan, etc.) I generally think PICs are fine, so you have an uphill battle if you want to go for PICs Bad in front of me…although I have voted on it before.

Case Debates – Love them, don’t hear enough good ones. Next.

Disads – They are sweet. I prefer specific links as opposed to generic ones. Make sure you do impact calculus (especially in the final rebuttals) so I can inevitably evaluate your extinction/nuclear war/etc. claims. I think impact turn debates are fun to judge if the aforementioned impact calc happens. Affs should not be afraid to attack the internal links of these disads…we all know a bunch of them are silly and sometimes the truth is your friend. In link turn debates, make sure you keep the debates clean and try to compare the quality of the evidence involved, not just say “Our ev post dates yours”.

CPs – I already covered my theoretical leanings. I prefer specific, well-thought CPs to the generic ones…but I’m cool with whatever. Explain your net-benefits as well as permutations very well. I love tricky PICs.

Ks – I think I speak for most judges when I say that bad K debates are some of the least fun to judge. I have run my fair share of them, so I have a few thoughts to put you on the path to success with the K in front of me. For the neg, explain your alternative well (how does it solve the aff if it does at all, what does rejecting/withdrawing/doing nothing actually do, etc.) as well as explain your impacts/offense. Link debates in K debates are often extremely generic in nature which makes your position much harder to sell in my eyes. Be as specific as possible in relation to the aff when explaining your links and you’ll do yourself a lot of good. For the aff, go after the alternative’s solvency, leverage your specific solvency, and make sure you have some form of offense. Also, explain your permutation(s) well in terms of how it/they solve the links to the K.

General other tidbits – I generally give speaker points in the range of 27-29 with only a few people getting 29s (I have given one 29.5 ever)….if you handle your business and make the round enjoyable/fun, I won’t keep you from clearing or cost you a speaker award. Be funny if you are funny…if you aren’t funny, please don’t try in front of me. Do not be rude or offensive…if you are, your speaker points will suffer. Tag-team cross-ex is fine, but if only one debater is talking...the other’s points will be hurt. Overall, have fun in these debates and if you have anymore questions, just ask.