Cotter,+Colesy

I'm a freshman 2A at Cornell University this year, and I debated for The Westminster Schools for six years in high school/middle school. (Sometimes tabroom has me listed under Coles Cotter)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-gQLqv9f4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RLh0-q0gs

**tl;dr:**

“Disclaimer: you can still run what you like despite what’s posted below; I will do my best to evaluate all arguments fairly regardless of my own bias, as long as you are clear, and that you impact and explain your arguments” -David Heidt

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is a must- I’ll say clear but I might give up after a while. I won't dock your speaks as much as other judges because I think if you're smart and work hard you deserve to be rewarded for that, but if I don't flow an argument because I can't understand you I can't vote on it.

2. Please be respectful and kind to your opponents! Any rudeness or offensive behavior will tank your speaks (and probably isn’t a good idea anyway)

3. Disclosure is good- unless it’s a new aff you should always disclose the 1ac or previous 2nrs, and don't lurk outside the round until one minute before the debate starts--that annoys me.

4. Reading evidence is also important and you should strive to read every card in the round if possible

5. I don’t time flashing, but “I will be watching, waiting, for someone to steal prep”- Harry Berry, but it really annoys me when people take forever flashing. Please use emails chains/pocketbox.

**Long Version:**

**Case**— Try to actually engage the case debate--I've watched so many debates where the only case defense was a couple old impact defense cards. Even if you don't have any aff-specific cards, a couple good analytics are easy to throw together and can actually make a difference. Internal links are usually the weakest part of the aff- exploit that rather than 10 generic impact defense cards Zero risk is possible, although not likely unless there’s a completely conceded argument I’m inclined to give the aff some risk of solvency. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Presumption is never a great strategy; so even if you mitigate the case a lot, try to have some offense. In order to vote on presumption I think there would have to be a 0% risk of the aff, which is nearly impossible. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Line by line on case debates is extremely important !!

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**DAs—**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Live it love it. I'm a big fan of the politics and elections disads.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Impact turns—**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Love them as well! Most of my 1nr’s are disads or impact turns.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**CPs—**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Explain how the CP solves the aff specifically and answer all solvency deficits no matter how small they sound- a good 2A can (and should) expand on one the 2nr blows off. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Affs should impact solvency deficits in terms of their advantages and how that affects terminal impacts. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Read add ons the CP can't solve. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If the CP links to the NB, I’ll probably vote aff. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I will not kick the 2nr's advocacy for them-- they are stuck with their choice for the final rebuttal.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**International fiat-** probably ok, because aff should have a USFG key warrant.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**50 state fiat-** eh, depends on how much the neg cheats by adding different planks to fiat through solvency deficits and if those planks are grounded in evidence.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Consult, conditions, recommend, things that do the entirety of the aff/compete on certainty and/or immediacy and normal means**—bad

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**PICs out of the mandate of the plan-** ok if they are based in lit

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Word PICs-** very very bad. I hate them. I 100% side aff on word pics bad and will not hesitate to vote on it.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Condo—**2 conditional options is probably legit, any less than that is fine, more than that probably means you should lose on condo. Blatant perfcon makes me want to vote aff.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Multiplank CPs—**not great. It really annoys me when teams read counter-plans with 6 planks and don't have one solvency advocate for all of them. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If they don’t go for the cheating CP/perm, theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Basically, if you look at Harrison Hall's philosophy and do the exact opposite you'll be great.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**T—**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I love T debates, although I haven't judged any debates on this topic since camp so keep that in mind. A good T violation is one that’s explained, supported by good definitions and impacted well. Don’t just read your generic limits disads and what not-contextualize it to the aff! The neg needs to win that the aff excludes some essential group of arguments and explain why that’s bad and they should lose the round. Specificity goes a long way. Talk about what you think are the key topic controversies and explain why the aff excludes those. In terms of aff arguments, defend your interpretation--why overlimiting is bad? Why should your aff be included in the topic? Also reasonability is important. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">A lot of T debates devolve to a point where neither side has very much offense and that’s particularly frustrating.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**K—**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">My high school and college partner each go for the K a decent bit and I'll extend them in the 1nr a lot, but they're not my favorite argument in debate. I've extended everything from neolib to queer crip eco fem so I understand the majority of K lit people read in debate, but if you're reading some high theory Bataille k, more explanation can only help you. It annoys me if you’re just reading them to try to confuse the other team or ignore the line-by-line. You should actually understand what you’re saying and be able to explain it beyond buzzwords. Affs should just defend their aff! Heg is good, empiricism is good, falsifiability is good. Don’t neglect framework! Weighing the aff is probably a god-given right. (It’ll be *VERY* hard to convince be otherwise) Role of the ballot arguments are excuses for lazy debating-- instead of making the role of the ballot "vote neg to challenge X", win that challenging X actually outweighs. Util is probably also my default. Floating piks are bad.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Stuff you shouldn’t drop no matter what – value to life, fw etc.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**K affs—**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I strongly believe the aff should defend a topical action by the USFG and topicality is a very persuasive argument, so proving to me your aff is good for debate is a battle you have to win. I obviously won't auto vote neg in a fw debate because I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but I'm probably not the best judge for you if you don't read a plan.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Random Theory Things—**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">ASPEC: not a fan, it MUST be set up in 1AC cx if its to be considered at all

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">OSPEC etc: please no

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I mostly lean aff on theory, but if you clearly explain why something is (or isn't) a voter you should be fine

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Random—**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you have any questions feel free to email me at colescotter@gmail.com