Cohen,+Cameron

I debated for four years at Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles; I’m now a sophomore at Harvard.


 * Short version:**

I could be a fan of most arguments you’d want to read, provided they 1) are persuasively explained in a way that I can understand and 2) have an explicit reason why it means you should win. That means engaging the topic and your speaking time with whatever you find valuable, whether that means policy arguments, critical debate, theory, or framework. My true main preference is that you run good arguments that you understand and execute well; I’d much rather see a debate that is well carried out over things you enjoy then one where you’re forced to adapt to any particular style.

That said, I have a tendency to view some arguments as more persuasive than others. Here are some of those preferences:


 * Policy:**

I think these are some of the best debates around, and generally were my favorite arguments in high school. I would love for you to do good evidence comparison, weigh your strength of link into voters, and compare your impacts.

On many debates, I find the argument that “it’s conceded so it’s 100% strength of link and it outweighs everything” very preposterous. Arguments don’t start at 100% truth; instead, they start at however true they were to begin with. Therefore, a terrible, conceded argument is worth significantly less than a well-warranted and rigorously backed argument that has some contestation.

I’m not a fan of plans bad theory arguments.


 * On T/Framework vs. non-topical AFFs:**

I’m very open to arguments on both sides, with some caveats. I think debate can be a unique platform to be creative and express things that you think are important. I generally much prefer creative ways of engaging the resolution rather than abandoning it entirely. I can be persuaded that there are issues much larger than the line by line on the flow, but I’m also very impressed by technical proficiency in responding to framework.

Framework, however, can be a convincing argument and often comes down to “topical version of the aff.” In many cases it’s important to establish how the aff violates the neg’s interp, especially if it’s not immediately clear.

T standards like clash and engagement seem far more intuitively persuasive than nebulous “decision-making” claims, and I think that often many fairness claims are sort of amorphous and miss the point / the story of the case; I’m open to hearing any of these if you can argue them persuasively.

My main preference is that debaters don't hide behind words and phrases like "education first" or "debate is a game, therefore fairness first." These arguments reduce incredibly complicated ideas to vague, undefined intuitions about what it means to be an educator. So, like I say throughout this paradigm, I do not care if you run theory on a K or alternatively try to use the "role of the ballot" arguments to show why theory is oppressive or should be rejected. What I do care about is that you are specific in what you mean by these arguments and what your vision of debate looks like.


 * Theory:**

Theory debates can be fun and strategic, but I will be very easily annoyed by either a) shells with short, blippy arguments everywhere that are read solely for strategic value or b) arguments that are clearly ludicrous and meant to trick up your opponent. The standard for “clearly ludicrous” is fairly clear. **Dumb tricks typically fall under the “clearly ludicrous” spectrum.**

Smart topicality arguments with evidence or well-justified interpretations with **in-round abuse** claims can be very compelling.

Please read interpretations **VERY SLOWLY.** I don’t know why I’m putting this here because no one does it anyway, but **if you read an interpretation that I do not flow, I will probably not vote on it.**

If you don’t specify at all, I’ll default to dropping the argument, competing interps, and no RVIs. Thus, it’s probably in your best interest to specify your theory paradigms.

There’s some new hip trend where people just like pick 4-5 random, clearly, non-abusive things their opponent did and group them together in one interp and say the combination was bad (e.g., reading an NC + turns + 2 contentions + having their name start with a C is abusive). Please don’t do this.


 * Kritiks:**

They can be great; I think many kritiks are super interesting and can be compelling, and have lots of strategic value. The best kritik debates by far come down to SPECIFICS. You should try to read case specific kritiks, and even when reading more generic arguments, you should always make case and round specific links; try not to rely on generics.

Run kritiks if you enjoy them and you know what you’re talking about; don’t just run a kritik because I like them. I would prefer you have an alternative other than rejection; actually advocate something.

With that being said, I truly hate some of the tendencies in K debate. Do not hide behind jargon. Do not overstate your impacts. Be specific, be smart, and know what you're talking about. Also, if you don't make specific links to the aff in the NC, I'm more likely to give the aff credence on no link arguments.


 * Tricks:**

I generally don’t find them persuasive – common sense responses are usually very effective.


 * Philosophy/Framework:**

I know about most of the common LD frameworks and enjoy some philosophy, but (similarly to the K section) I think the tendency to rely on debate jargon at the expense of explanations often reduces complex and nuanced philosophical theories to the point where they literally mean nothing. For that reason, I probably will hold a lot of framework arguments to slightly higher thresholds of explanations than many other arguments.

Travis Fife Adam Torson Rodrigo Paramo Chris Theis Ayush Midha
 * People I largely agree with:**