Cohn,+Brad

Brad Cohn Cherry Creek High School University of Chicago

I debated in high school for three years in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I now compete in the American Parliamentary Debate Association for the Chicago Debate Society. I consider debate to be an exercise in **logic** and **communication**, and my paradigms are consistent with this belief.

**Speaking Style** : I am **not a fan of speed**. Public Forum was created so as to be accessible to individuals outside the debate community. I know that the speech times are short, but that ought to serve as a motivation for more concise argumentation. Fluency is important to me insofar as it aids the clarity of your argumentation. If you're not making clear arguments, I will not buy them regardless of how fluent your speech is. While I know it is difficult, please refrain from using common debate fillers like, "We need to see..." repetitively. Jokes, metaphors, and diagrams are encouraged when they contribute to an argument.


 * Clash**: If there is no clash in the round, the debate will get incredibly boring. If you feel like your opponents are not addressing your arguments, call them out on it, don't just mindlessly repeat them. Tell me specifically why the argumentation they are using is unresponsive. Similarly, please avoid repetition in your points. I will be flowing the round, and I'm not interested in writing down the same argument a dozen times on the flow.


 * Burden**: The pro team has the burden of affirming the whole resolution. That said, I will vote holistically on arguments made during the round. If the pro team brings up one really great example of why debate on a specific religious issue is going to have unique harms, but the con team effectively weighs those harms against general benefits, I'll vote con.


 * Philosophical Argumentation**: While I think having an empirical debate is important, I consider philosophical argumentation equally and separately in each round.


 * Critical or Theory Argumentation**: I don't think it generally belongs in Public Forum, but if you make an incredibly convincing case then I will listen. I very much encourage creative and inventive arguments, but make sure that they remain accessible to a non-debate audience.


 * New Material**: Please, no new material after the constructive speeches. New examples are welcome, but these speeches are best for providing me with a frame through which to view the arguments made.


 * Evidence**: Quality of evidence is very important in the round. I am likely to believe an academic or governmental source before a random magazine or blog. Large studies are convincing, op-ed writers are not. Furthermore, and even more importantly, **explain your evidence**. I need to understand how everything is specifically applicable in the round before I'll vote on it.


 * Cross-fire**: I do not flow during cross-fire. If there are arguments made, then bring them up later. **Please stay civil and respectful**. If GCF becomes a fiasco, both sides should expect low speaker points.


 * Voting**: I will vote on clearly articulated impacts in the final speeches. Give me clear mechanisms by which to weigh the debate and convince me that they make the most sense. If it's not in your final focus, don't expect me to vote on it. Furthermore, I am not a huge fan of quantitative weighing, as it is usually predicated upon what are usually arbitrary statistics on selective issues in the round. Give me large ethical or moral reasons to vote or construct a model that is well supported by empirical data.

I will be open and welcome to any questions either team would like to ask before round. See you soon, and good luck!