Cowen,+Gerald

Gerald Cowen Newburgh Free Academy '10 University of Miami '14

1. What decision-making paradigm do you use? //I believe that debate is structured such that the Affirmative cannot win unless they stay within the rules/confines of the activity, unless they argue otherwise (i.e. performance teams, critiques of debate, etc.). If boundaries are met, I default to evaluating debate from the perspective of a policymaker. The Affirmative is proposing a plan; the Negative is my advisor. For the Affirmative to win, I need to know what I gain or lose from signing the bill (read: granting the ballot). I am open to any well-articulated framework established in the 1AC/1NC.//
 * __ Theory __**

1. Which T violations do you like/dislike? How is T evaluated? //I do not appreciate egregious definition of “substantially,” otherwise I will evaluate any well-explained violation. For the Negative to win on topicality, I want to hear a list of Aff cases that meet the definition and a list of arguments that cannot be run because of abuse by the Affirmative. If you are going for topicality in the 2NR, you should NOT also be going for a CP/DA/K.// 2. What else can you tell me about T violations? //I think "reasonability" should be a way to compare interpretations, not a reason why topicality isn't a voting issue. I rarely vote on interpretations that don't have evidence to support them.// 3. What are your preferences for disads? Counterplans? //I will listen to any counterplan. I am looking for clear articulation of why the CP is a better option for solving the advantages or proves the Aff case is not necessary.//
 * __ Topic Specific Arguments __**

1. Do you like them? //In college, I began to lean towards critiques and critical Affirmatives. I prefer case-specific critiques to topic-specific critiques. I expect// a concrete story flushing out each individual part of the critique. //I do not study philosophy and will not vote on a critique I do not understand (read: explain it clearly and slowly).// 2. What standards do you use to evaluate them? //I will evaluate the critique per the framework I am told to use. I default to the paradigm of a policy-maker; as a legislator, I am more concerned with tangible impacts.// 3. What are your preferences for performance arguments? //I have a bias against performance arguments / teams.//
 * __ Critiques/Deontology __**

1. Do you read evidence after a round? //I will not read evidence after the round, unless it is contested.// 2. What are your standards of evaluation? //Whether evaluating evidence or analytics: scientific studies > empirics > consensus (AKA conventional wisdom; including admissions in CX) > logic/reasoning > opinions/beliefs > unwarranted assertions. Evidence is more credible then analytics.// 3. Do you require full cites to be read? How does that affect your evaluation of evidence? //I request that an author /organization and year be read for all evidence. Qualifications should be listed, but do not need to be read aloud.// //Evidence that is more recent is more credible then older evidence. Evidence from sources without vested interests is more credible//.
 * __ Evidence __**

1. What do you do to encourage comprehensible speaking? //If I cannot understand you, I will yell “clear.” If I still cannot understand you, I will stop flowing. I can handle speed, but if you spread, do not have extra time at the end of your speech.// 2. What constitutes an argument? //An argument is an offensive or defensive statement made in a speech that makes an assertion. Whenever possible and appropriate, an argument should be warranted with evidence.// 3. Do you find tag-team CX objectionable? //Tag-team CX is fine; though please do not dominate your partner’s CX.// 4. What behavior or mannerisms do you find objectionable? //All debaters speaking in CX should be standing and looking at the judge. Do not become aggressive.//
 * __ Style __**

I haven't figured out how I feel about paperless debates; though, I do not have much patience for technology delays in-round. I believe any team that reads digital evidence should provide a laptop solely for the other team's use or flash them evidence BEFORE your digital speech. If you can do neither, then the other team can have your computer during their prep and speeches and your team will lose speaker points.
 * __ Paperless Debates __**

I was a 2N in high school and preferred topicality and theory arguments. In college, I run a critical aff.
 * __ Miscellaneous __**

I debated for 4 years for Newburgh Free Academy in Newburgh, New York. I qualified for the NFL and CFL national tournaments my sophomore and senior years. I presently debate for the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida.
 * __ Qualifications __**