cronin,+parker


 * parker cronin **


 * Currently an assistant coach at university of Michigan and Whitney Young. I have coached for Georgetown day in past years. **

== __Important note:__ I know almost nothing about the transportation topic. I worked at the Michigan camp last summer so I have some little bits of knowledge but not a lot given that I've only judged maybe half a dozen high school debates since then. If you have a super high-tech strategy that relies on a lot of topic knowledge you will need to do a bit more explanation for me to get it. ==


 * The most important thing you can do is run what you are good at. People that are familiar with me personally may have a tendency to think that I’m shanahan-esque k-hack that flows in a spiral and doesn’t evaluate non-critical theory based args. This is definitely __not__ the case. Good debates are my preference! Go for what you are good at, win that, and you will most likely win the debate. **


 * Now, the phrase "do what you are good at" tends to appear in so many judge philosophies that it has become almost useless. Despite this, I think that it's a pretty meaningful and true statement about myself. I really just don't have strong opinions about what a debate should be about. To me the distinction between "policy" and "kritikal" arguments is way overblown and largely arbitrary. I really just enjoy listening to arguments, the particular form or content of those arguments is irrelevant, it is really just a question of how well you debate those arguments in front of me. A great DA debate is super exciting to me, a great hip-hop resistance debate is exciting to me, a great case debate is exciting to me. It really makes no difference to me what the particular subject matter is. Arguments are fun regardless of their particular peculiarities. **


 * The one thing to know about me is that I do not fool myself into thinking that I know how the world works. I realize that as a 23 year old I have no idea what the truth of things are. I don't know what the truth of debate is, I don't know the truth of philosophy, I don't know the truth of whether global warming is real/anthropogenic/will or will not cause extinction. I've spent a significant portion of time thinking about things (mostly having to do with history, geography and cartography) but I do not feel that I have reached any real conclusions at this point in time, at least none that I wouldn't be willing to jettison for a better idea. I evaluate debates not as a search for truth, but as an hour and a half long conversation that doesn't really reach a conclusion. Because of that, I bring as little to the table as possible and just evaluate what is said in the debate. Most of my decisions have very little to do with the truth value of arguments as much as they have to do with how well they are debated. **


 * Argumentation outweighs evidence. If an argument is well-explained, warranted, impacted etc etc, then I will give it just as much weight as a card in many instances. You also need to make arguments that tie cards to the debate. just because you read a card doesn't mean I will apply it to what you want it to say. Explain how the card fits to your argument. Cards are building blocks for the overall argument that you make, they don't speak for themselves and are not arguments in themselves. **


 * I decide debates very quickly (usually under 10 minutes) and only rarely read evidence. **


 * There is such a thing as absolute defense. Zero link to the spending DA if the aff spends no money for example. This usually comes into play when it's a truth question. **


 * I flow CX. Not in the sense that I count CX as times to make arguments, I just flow it to keep track of answers to questions. So don't baulk on your CX answers. **


 * do not call me "judge." I have an identity beyond the instrumentalizing position of decision maker that you have foisted upon me. **

**The three things I do have strong opinions against are as follows:** **1) bad plan flaw arguments (mispelled words, wrong capitalization, acronyms, etc) this does not mean that I won't vote on a plan-flaw if it's good. For example if the aff gives social services to the wrong group of people, or something along those lines. Just not plan-flaw arguments involving minor mistakes/typos.** **2) Death good arguments. I don't vote on them.** **3) consult and/or condition counterplans without evidence about the aff. (IE need a __//real//__ solvency advocate, not some random fuck who says talking to ASEAN from time to time is a decent idea.)** **Important to note about each of these three things is that I will still vote on them, however I am much most sympathetic to the aff answers to them than most judges, ergo when I am interpreting the debate I am more likely to defer to their arguments. In order to win these arguments you REALLY have to win them in order to overcome my large bias.**

**I am not really a good judge for theory or T. Frequently I just don't understand the implications of these arguments. For example, WTF does it mean when the negative wins that there is an "aff side bias"? I have no idea why that matters or how that interacts with other arguments. If you go for theory, you gotta explain why arguments matter - there needs to be an impact to each of your observations (IE the claim that conditionality is key to neg flex is an observation to me without an implication unless you make an arg about why neg flex is important). Same thing with T debates, very often don't understand the impact of standards arguments. Why should I limit things? Answer: I have no idea. Not even a faint clue.**

**The second most important thing you can do in front of me is control the frame of the debate. At the end of that round, I do not want to have to decide for myself what are the most important things, nor do I want to decide which lense I should use in interpreting arguments. You should make arguments as to why certain things you say ought to be considered most important. I will adopt whatever frame you ask me to so long as you can justify it.** **__**


 * Finally, and most importantly, have fun!! So many people take the competition too far, debate is meant to be enjoyable, not miserable. Being mean to the other team or your partner will get you low speaks. Homophobic, racist, sexist etc comments will almost certainly earn you a loss even if the other team doesn't say anything. Unpleasant, mean or angry debates make me sad **** L **** Pleasant, friendly and loving debates make me happy **** J **


 * Please ask me questions if you have them! Enjoy! **