Cochran,+Travis

My name is Travis Cochran. I debated for 2 years at UNLV, coached for 3 years at The Meadows School, and debated in high school for 4 years at Green Valley High School. I have judged 12 rounds on this year’s high school topic, but they were all camp rounds. I have judged 6 rounds on this year’s college topic, all at UNLV. Overall, I’ve been judging for 8 years. When I debated I ran every kind of argument. I preferred to get into big case debates or critique debates. I did the 8 off thing. I also did the 1 off/1 off and case thing. I preferred doing the 1 off and case thing. I preferred running middle of the road critical affirmatives, but I also ran small policy affs and big stick policy affs. As a judge, here are my thoughts… Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. I tend to default to reasonability. I like good contextual topicality evidence. Counterplans: The more specific the better, but I’m game for whatever. Consult CPs are fine. Delay is fine. I do not like counterplans with a lot of planks that the negative can jettison at will. Such counterplans will leave me sympathetic to affirmative theory arguments. Counterplan Theory: Sketchy counterplans should lose to theory. However; theory violations should be well developed and it is up to the affirmative to prove why I should reject the team and not the argument. Theory: I think negatives are getting away with too much. People can run multiple contradictory counterplans/advocacies all they want in front of me and I will not automatically vote them down for it. However; I am sympathetic to well articulated theory arguments as to why it is cheating, as well as sympathetic to affirmatives that use negative shenanigans to justify affirmative shenanigans. Play dirty pool at your own risk in front of me…aff or neg. I do not like cheap shot theory. I try to not vote for cheap shot theory arguments, even if they are dropped. However; I will use cheap shot theory arguments as a way out of difficult rounds in which both teams were making my job painful. I try not to let cheap shots determine the outcome of rounds that are well debated on both sides. I reward good smart debate. Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good uniqueness cards to 10 bad uniqueness cards. I prefer 1 or 2 good warrants to 10 bad uniqueness cards. Criticism: The more specific the better. To me…most of these debates come down to how the criticism asks me as the judge to deal with the advantages. Is the problem introduced by the criticism the reason for the advantages? Are the advantages rhetorical ploys? Does the critique impact turn the advantages? Whichever team addresses this best for me usually wins. Framework: I’m a fan of framework discussions in most forms. I like teams to resolve for me what debate is supposed to be and what the benefits are of debate being viewed in that way. I then like teams to resolve for me why particular arguments within the round either are consistent with that interpretation of debate. Performance: I’m open to it. Case: I wish my people debated it more. I honestly think that a well developed case attack (offense and a heck of a lot of good defense) with a disad or with a critique are much more effective than multiple disads/critiques/counterplans. Case debate is good and underrated. I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not mean. One thing that everyone should know is that I naturally give a lot of nonverbal (sometimes verbal) feedback, even in the middle of rounds. If I think your argument is really smart then you will probably see me smiling and nodding. If I think your argument is not smart or just wrong, my face will look contorted and I will be shaking it in a different direction. If this happens…do not freak out. Use it to your advantage that you know which arguments I like and do not like. I will also intervene in cross x if I think that a team is being particularly evasive on a point that needs to be clarified to conduct a good clean debate. I will also intervene in cross x if I think the environment is becoming hostile. Debate is fun…at least it should be. Don’t be a jerk.