Copenhaver,+Roger

 ** Updated for 2015-2016 season **  __Background__ :  This year will be my 10th year in the activity. I debated for 3 years in high school at Puyallup High School (2006-2009) and 4 in college at Idaho State University (2009-2013).  __Current affiliations__ :  Georgia State University Rowland Hall Saint Mark's High School (UT)  Interlake High School (WA)  ---  __How I decide debates:__ I believe that a balance between tech and truth is important in debate. I tend to see and evaluate debates holistically. I am also very flow oriented. I try my best to keep a good flow of the debate. You should frame the end of the debate around important central questions to get my ballot. I don't like to read a ton of evidence but will if I feel the need to. It should be the debaters job to make sure that I don't need to read evidence.  __Framework:__ My views on framework seem to have changed every year since I finished my college career. I will try to clarify my views since I ended up in more clash debates last year than in the past. While I believe that the topic is the stasis point for discussion and while I belive that can mean a variety of things for different people, I do believe that framework is a viable negative strategy and an essential part of the negative toolbox. I don't think framework is the only strategy, but I do think it is one of many. __**[important to note … major 2015-2016 change]**__ I don't plan on telling you how to read framework, however, more recently, I have come to the conclusion that framework arguments centered around questions of fairness, predictably, limits, etc... are much more persuasive than framework arguments that are a question of methods for political activism. I think it is easy for AFF teams to talk about why they have very particular ways for engaging in politics that are much more persuasive than general arguments about debate and decision making. The last tip for winning framework debates in front of me, is to make sure that you win impacts to your args and don’t have just a bunch of internal links.  __Counterplans:__ What is theoretically legitimate is open for debate. I try to enter the debate without any biases for what debaters should be allowed to talk about. With that being said, I probably still think that counterplans should have solvency advocates, compete in some capacity, and provide and opportunity cost to the affirmative. I typically lean neg on questions of theory. Truthfully most “cheating” counterplans are bad and should be easy to beat because they are bad. Lastly, I think judge kick is stupid. I will do it if I am told to, but I am persuaded that 2N’s should have to think strategically and should be held accountable to their 2NR choice. I do think that AFF’s should exploit the difference between the CP and the AFF.  __Disadvantages:__ While I find a lot of the intricacies of the politics debate interesting, I think the politics DA is stale. That is not to say that I won’t vote for it. Obviously politics is an essential component of the negatives toolbox. However, I think topic DA’s and DA’s specific to the AFF are way more interesting to listen to, and often times a much better strategy entering the debate.  __K/Performance Debate__ : Controlling meta level questions for the debate is necessary. This is the type of debate that I have the most experience with. I rather see a debate where people are willing to defend something specific and generate offensive arguments from it rather then saying they are everything and nothing. You should be able to justify what you do. AFF’s should get permutations regardless of the type of debate that is happening. Debate is a competition and negative teams have the burden of meeting some standard for competition. I don’t think the alt has to solve the AFF. I think the alt needs to at least resolve a substantial amount of the link to the AFF. It makes much more sense to me to conceptualize the link debate as mini DA’s to the AFF and the impact section of the debate as impact framing.  __Other miscellaneous things:__
 *  Flowing and good line by line debate is a lost art. You will be greatly rewarded if you do good line by line debate.
 *  Bad embedded clash is almost impossible to follow and I probably won't get arguments where they should be.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"> Most of the time I keep a pretty good flow and I have typically found that my flow reflects the quality of the debate in terms of efficiency and debate technique.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"> Framework vs. framing – to me, framework is what should be allowed in the debate, and framing is what impacts should come first. I think these two things often times become conflated. To me, unless otherwise stated, the role of the ballot, judge, etc.. are all just impact framing issues.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"> Aff framework vs. the K is silly and neither team is going to generate traction in front of me spending substantial time here.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I am a strong believer in high evidence quality. Research is one of the most important parts of debate. This is tricky for me because I don’t read a lot of evidence, however I do think that high evidence quality should be rewarded. If I happen to read some of your evidence or you are really trying to get evidence in my hand, you should make sure it is good.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"> Debate is fun. I hope that you debate because you love this activity. I also like judging debates when debaters are intelligent, witty, funny, and engaged. I have zero tolerance for people that destroy the pedagogical values of this activity or that make this activity an unsafe, violent, or unpleasant space for other participants.