Cook,+Gabe

Email: gabe.cook@barstowschool.org

I have adjusted my speaker points recently.

29.6 – 30 – Approaching perfection to perfect. 29.1-29.5 – Excellent 28.5 – 29 – Above average to very good. 28.4 – Average 28.3– 27.7 – Slightly below average to below average 27.6 – 27 – Below average to well below average. 26.9 and below – Bad to potentially offensive.

Quick notes:


 * I am open to almost any argument but I defer policy.
 * Extremely fast debaters should slow down 5%, especially if they are not very clear. My flow, and subsequently you, will benefit. This is especially true of theory arguments.
 * I am a combination of tech and truth that leans tech.
 * I like a compelling narrative from each side. This is especially relevant in the link debate.
 * If you have good evidence use the warrants and extend it.
 * I find policy aff vs. K framework debates unnecessary. I tend to evaluate ontology, epistemology, discourse, and consequences through the lens of link and impact rather than as something resolved by debate theory. I evaluate most arguments through the link-impact lens.
 * High theory arguments, like Baudrillard, are my least favorite.


 * Overview: **

I have been involved with debate for over twenty years, and I have been part of rural, suburban and urban programs. I was the E.D. of DEBATE-KC for a decade before becoming the assistant debate coach at Barstow. In college, I debated at Missouri State. These experiences allow me to appreciate nearly all styles of debate and varied debate backgrounds. I am open to most any argument you wish to read.


 * What do you think the Aff burdens should be?**

The affirmative should support a change based on the resolution and they should prove that this change will be more beneficial than the status quo or competitive negative alternative. They should be prepared to defend the practical implications of their change, their method/discourse and ethical justifications.


 * What do you think the Neg burdens should be?**

The negative should prove that affirmative change will not make the status quo comparatively superior or that some other competitive change would be better. They can challenge the practical implications of the affirmative change, its method/discourse and ethical justifications.


 * How do I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?**

When I debated in college I read as many cards as I could as fast as I could. Many judges told me that I went too fast and for too much but I did not listen. As a judge I now see the advantage of slowing down just a bit if you are the top end of the speed scale.


 * Counter Plans**

I enjoy counter plans but they can be a mess to judge. I do not like to hear to counter plan theory debates but understand that they are inevitable in certain cases. I generally believe conditionality is a little unfair, but dispositionality seems more than fair, if its still a thing. I also believe PICs are generally OK. Consultation counter plans are abusive. I think a good counter plan sucks up some or all of the case impacts and then has a net benefit or two to outweigh the case. Aff’s need specific reasons why the counter plan cannot solve case.


 * DA's**

I enjoy DA debates and like to use cost benefit analysis for deciding rounds. Uniqueness is critical. If you control uniqueness, you control the DA. Impacts need to be explained and compared to aff case impacts.


 * Kritiks**

Kritiks are an essential part of the negative. I believe a good perm can answer many K's, but I am more than willing to vote for a K if the link and impact/alternative is well explained. The more specific the link, including references to aff evidence and discourse, the better. K's that have advocated alternatives and texts should be treated like counter plans.


 * Performance K Stuff and Non Topical Affs**

I like creative arguments and styles and I will vote for effective “performance” arguments and challenges to debate norms. I have and will vote for non topical K affs, but I pretty strongly prefer affirmatives to remain topical. They can be creative, metaphorical and/or argue that discourse matters more than policy, but I prefer a relationship to the the topic that gives the negative fair ground.


 * Topicality**

I view topicality like a DA. The violation is the link, the standards are the impacts. Examples help a ton, such as listing 5 abusive affs the affirmative interpretation allows, or countering with 5 legit cases the neg interpretation excludes. I think the burden for T falls heavily on the negative to prove both the link and impact.


 * Decision Calculus**

I generally view myself as a policy maker but ethical justifications/discourse/methods are all important to me as well. In any debate, both sides will be winning something, despite inevitable claims by debaters that they are winning every issue, so the last rebuttal speakers need to be effective at comparing arguments each side is winning and then weighing impacts. I generally prefer that rounds don’t come down to theory, but understand the occasional necessity.


 * Dropped arguments**

If an argument is dropped I generally give it full weight. However, I believe that you can talk about dropped arguments as you weigh the round. If a voting issue is dropped, I will generally vote on it to avoid judge intervention. But, if a dumb voting issue (such as some construed reverse voter on a perm or something) is dropped and then later refuted, I may allow the new arguments if proper warrant is given. For example, if a negative made a quick and almost hidden voting issue argument in the middle of solvency dump during the 1NC, and the aff did not catch it, I would allow the 1AR to answer the argument if they explained that the voter was not well-flagged and that hidden cheap shots should not decide debates.


 * How do I feel about case debates?**

I wish the case was debated more often. I like case turns, solvency arguments etc. Further, case impacts need to be minimized to help in weighing da’s.


 * Other Comments/Suggestions:**

Don’t be a snob or act superior to your opponent. I do not enjoy mean-spirited debaters and arrogance will reduce speaker points.