Wood,+Cody

2013-2014 Name: Cody Wood Number of Years Judging: 5 Number of rounds judged on this topic: 0 Debate experience: 3 years of policy in high school, 3 years at the University of Kansas

General things

You should do whatever you feel comfortable with arguing as a debater. I obviously have my own personal biases as to what I like to see/run/go for in a debate round, but I think that the best debates occur when people deploy the arguments that they are prepared for/passionate about. The activity itself is pretty unique in its ability to allow people to discuss all sides of an issue, and I do my best to see it that way. Effective debaters will not simply make arguments, but advance them in the context of the round and turn them into a offensive reason to win in the rebuttals. An argument has a claim, warrant, and an impact.

Argument Specific:

Topicality - Is about competing interpretations. I.e., what interp will provide the best platform for the community as a whole to debate under. I usually see questions of limits/ground as the inroads to education. I feel that K affs should function in some way that affirms the resolution and that responses to topicality are situated accordingly, but this doesn't mean I won't evaluate criticisms of T. It is up to the affirmative in these types of arguments to prove why the exclusion of your aff is worse than the exclusion of the negative's ability to debate.

Theory - Conditionality is almost always good, PICs are almost always good, consult and process counterplans border on illegit. I'll have a hard time rejecting the team on things liked dropped perm theory.

Disads - Impact calculus is very important and smart turns case arguments are always good to make and should always be answered by the aff.