Cox,+David


 * Minneapple 2015**

Hi there, I'm David Cox. I debated LD for Eagan High School from Fall 2011 to Spring 2015. I'm now a freshman at St. Thomas.

I will vote on anything that is won in round. Tell me how to evaluate arguments. Weigh impacts. 'Debate well.'
 * Overview**

If you get nothing else out of reading this, the three most important pieces of advice I can give are: 1. Clearly extend and explain the warrant and impact of your argument, "extend Peterson, people die" is not an extension. 2. Tell me how your arguments interact with the standards presented in the round, and how it outweighs your opponent’s argument(s). "It outweighs on magnitude and probability" is not weighing, those are claims which need a warranted explanation like any other argument. 3. Actually engage with your opponents arguments. Reading generic turns and answers may win you the round, but the best debaters can go down the flow and tell me why their opponents arguments are wrong, which is always more convincing then generic responses that apply to most AC's.

I default to viewing the resolution as a question of desirability rather than as a question of truth, but I will use whichever framework is won. I am open to 'alternative' ways of viewing the resolution; i.e., you may run things like performance cases, irony, or whatever crazy thing you think up. I should clarify however that stupid nonsensical positions still won't win, given of course that your opponent can point out that they are stupid and nonsensical. Please give me a clear evaluative mechanism, justify it well, and make use of it.
 * Framework **

Assuming a round with two competing, fairly 'normal' frameworks, I would like to hear some well-thought-out framework comparison. E.g., one well-explained argument re how your theory better provides a solution to the problem of the infinite regress of moral justification than your opponent's, is to be much preferred to six different ways of wording 'no bright-line'.

Explain your 'meta-ethic' or whatever gimmick you have at the top of your case well and how it function in the debate, if I don't hear it articulated well enough I'll probably ignore it, sorry.

You're probably gonna want to go at 70%, and slow down for tags and authors especially. I haven't debated for a minute and my flowing has atrophied accordingly. I'll say slow if it's really bad, but I don't want to.
 * Speed **

If you're a "theory debater," I'm sorry. I didn't run theory when I was debating, I didn't like it and I find it boring. However, I will vote for it and I understand it. I couldn't tell you why time skew controls the internal link to predictability. This means that, if you're going to run theory (especially if only for 'strategic' reasons), you're going to want to slow down for your fourth one sentence-long justification re why AFC is literally the best thing that has ever happened to debate. These debates are significantly harder to judge so crystallization is key. I default to competing interpretations.
 * Theory **

I have a basic understanding of most critical literature. Do not avoid clarification questions from your opponent. Merely regurgitating the hyperbolic rhetoric with which many of these authors write is not sufficient. I understand that most of these arguments cannot be boiled down to a two sentence explanation without losing what truly makes them distinctive, but please do your best not to be obfuscatory.
 * Critical Arguments **

Fine with it, but label it as a plan or a counter-plan. If it's not readily apparent you don't defend the whole resolution, or that it is what it is, expect me to have a severe distaste for you. Slow for the plan text.
 * Plans/Counter-plans**

I'm pretty standard. 27 is average, 25 is bad, 30 is amazing. Speak clearly, signpost, extend arguments, weigh impacts, explain how positions interact, blah blah blah. Again, 'debate well'.
 * Speaker Points **

I will do my best to evaluate all arguments objectively, and not punish you for doing something that I don't necessarily 'like' -- something that I might not have run back when I was debating -- but total objectivity is probably impossible, so I may as well make my personal preferences explicit.
 * Personal Biases **
 * I tend to think theory is boring.
 * Obviously abusive positions are annoying and no fun for anyone.
 * Non-stock positions are dope.
 * Label things as "a priori" if that's what they are.

Offensive arguments/behavior. I know that this is totally and completely subjective, but, sorry, I just won't do it. Things like moral skepticism are fine; asserting that "the Holocaust was totally chill" is categorically not.
 * Exception to Objectivity **