Esgro,+Colin

Colin Esgro (Cathedral Prep) Tournaments on Topic: I debated for four years in high school for Scranton and two for Pitt, been judging/coaching for Cathedral Prep on and off since then. Before I get into specific argument philosophies, I generally feel that my predispositions and preferences are not exclusive and I will judge the debate as objectively as possible. My positions on certain arguments can change given the particular round and way I am instructed to evaluate the debate. As an additional note, I don’t feel as though debaters should adapt to what they feel is my style or way of evaluating args. I like to have as little impact on the debate as possible. To me, the best debates take place when both teams argue what they are most comfortable arguing. I won’t read every card, just the ones that matter. Impact calculus and instructions on how to decide are necessary, early and often. Also I am extremely receptive to real arguments and have a low tolerance for improbable dumb arguments. The debaters that break down the debate in logical, clever terms usually get the higher speaker points.

T/Theory debates- I usually evaluate these debates in terms of competing interpretations. To win these debates in front of me you need to prove offensive reasons why your interpretation is good for debate and impact those claims. This is not to say that I will never vote on a reasonability or defensive theory argument, but the better T/theory debaters construct competing worlds of debate and provide clear advantages to their respective vision. T is always a voting issue. K’s- Although I did not run K’s much while I debated I don’t mind hearing them as long as they neg clearly wins the framework debate. When I do vote neg on the K it is usually because the negative wins the framework and the Aff can’t weigh its adv’s. Additionally the alternative must be clear and as non-generic as possible. Meaning you have to explain what happens if I vote for the K and why. Usually I vote against the K when the alt is unclear and/or utopian. The alt. should have a text. If I were forced to take a position on fiat I would say that the Aff should generally have the right to weigh its advantages against the criticism but this is obviously up to the debaters to influence. CP’s- Can’t really go wrong here. Although I feel consult CP’s and process CP’s to be a little illegit I will still vote for them if they compete and the neg handles the theory debate. PICs are good. Case/DA’s- Like it all as long as it makes sense. Politics DA’s are legit, probably won’t find me receptive to vote no args/general analytics usually run against them. Final Notes-
 * 1) Cross-X is important for your speaker points. The debaters that get the higher points in front of me win the ethos battle. Debaters who are technically skillful when their faces are buried in blocks but fold when they are pressed in C-X will see their speaks fall.
 * 2) The best debates to me are CP/DA/Case debates that incorporate a specific CP with a targeted net benefit supplemented by offensive case turns that avoid the CP.
 * 3) Plan Flaw args are fair game. I feel that if someone screws up their plan text they should be held accountable. This is not saying I will vote for an ill-concieved cheap shot but I do not see myself siding with an Aff saying “you know what we meant”