Coots,+Josh

LD Paradigm  __Background:__ ​ I am a Lincoln-Douglas and Congressional Debate coach and have degrees in History, Political Science and English with a Philosophy minor. I competed in Model United Nations in high school and college. __Decision:__ As a judge for Lincoln-Douglas debate, I side with the speaker that is best able to proactively defend his/her case. This means creating a logical framework and treating the case as a proof to uphold the position. __Speed:__ I can understand speed debaters easily, but I prefer to see public speaking skills being practiced as this is one of the objectives of debate. I will not necessarily vote down speed, but if the opponent has a more sound argument overall even though they drop evidence or minor arguments due to spreading, I will still vote quality over quantity. __Value:__ The value structure in a case is of significant importance and, as such, must be upheld by each side. A case without a value is pointless in Lincoln-Douglas. The value and value criterion should form the foundation of a case with argumentation filling out the logical proof for the position. A case can be won on logic alone, though many topics make this difficult without evidentiary support and collaboration. __Evidence:__ Evidence is important for demonstrating the validity of particular points, but a logical analysis of evidence will when over recency. I do not buy date battles over evidence unless it is simply a fact that has changed from one date to the other and is verifiable. Dated analysis with the same facts goes to the debater who can demonstrate that the analysis in the evidence is more logically sound. __Kritiks:__ I do not judge based on my own preferences in philosophy and am willing to be convinced with good argumentation. The one exception I might give is a hesitation toward deconstructionism. Without an alternative framework, a deconstructionist argument usually comes across as dilatory. This tendency on my part would tend to suggest that I am not in favor of kritiks, though I am not entirely opposed. A well-reasoned kritik based on solid philosophical principles can be a compelling argument. __Philosophy:__ Do not name drop philosophers. I know who they are, but simply calling a name does not tell me that you do. Make it clear that you understand what you are talking about if you are going to use something like Kant’s categorical imperative or utility. A utility argument run as hedonism without defending hedonism makes it obvious that you missed the point of your own argument. <span class="s3" style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0);">__Rebuttals:__ <span class="s2" style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0);">I take detailed flows, so I will be aware of dropped arguments, but that does not mean that I will decide a round based on how many arguments you fleece your opponent with. If a dropped arguments is an essential point to your case, you must bring it up during rebuttal and explain how its omission is significant. <span class="s3" style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0);">__Voting Issues:__ <span class="s2" style="background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0);">Tell me what arguments you found the most compelling in the round that you want me to make a decision on, but do not talk down to me or try to sideline a major argument that did not go your way. It is better to give me arguments you felt you won and why they should be the deciding factor rather than someothers.