Cavanaugh,+Dylan

Updated for TFA State, 2014

This is my fourth year to assistant coach on the Dallas circuit at Grapevine High School, and second year to assistant coach at Plano East High School. I occasionally travel outside of Dallas, and I judge pretty much every weekend. Expect me to have read about the topic and have a decent understanding of the current normative practices.

Though I outline certain preferences and opinions, quite a few of them change relatively often. More than anything, I am interested in hearing your viewpoints about the topic and the debate community in a persuasive manner.

This being said, well fleshed out and explained positions are accepted 100% of the time, and I do not have any bias against types of arguments. In years past, I have taken on the perspective that certain arguments should be, "off limits." I no longer hold this view. I believe that any logical argument deserves a response. However, that response does not have to necessarily engage the "substance" of the argument in question. If you differ on my viewpoints concerning the acceptability of a claim, feel free to challenge that idea. A response that says, "your paradigm says nothing is off limits" does not respond to an argument that says, "my opponents argument should be rejected on the grounds of "x" ethic." Unless there is a very compelling reason to do so, do not call on my paradigm as a reason to accept/reject an argument. That being said, just as I believe arguments deserve a response, I accept any form of response.

Framework: I enjoy rounds in which an assumption of your opponent's argument is called into question; critical positions that make me think make me happy. But, If both debaters chose to default to a post-fiot utility calculous, I have no problem accepting that metric of evaluation. That being said, I believe this agreement can certainly make a significant layer of the round irrelevant, making the round more predictable and centered. In short, util, critical, whatever.

If you chose to run a CP, please slow down for the text. If you run a DA, slow down on the link tags. I have less experience in evaluating policy-esk arguments, though I have voted on plenty of DAs.

I am likely to give you awful speaker point if I think you are intentionally being confusing or making blippy arguments in the framework that have magical implications in the 1AR. Speaking of which, I will often view blips as non-arguments and not evaluate them, as they do not have every part of an argument. Don't be surprised if I say, "sorry, I don't have enough to piece together a coherent sequence of argument, I don't feel comfortable voting here." I understand the necessity of reading theoretical justifications in the 1AC; however, I would much rather have a well developed shell concerning the ROTB than 12 one liners.

Theory: In the past, I have viewed theory pretty negatively. These days, I think theory is just another layer of discussion. However, a few things to keep in mind.
 * 1) If you say that you should have access to an RVI, tell me what constitutes an RVI. I generally do not accept "I meets" as a reason to access an RVI, but feel free to change my mind.
 * 2) I default to a competing interpretations paradigm. But, if the opposing debater is giving me a bunch of "I meets," annihilating the standards, or doing anything else to take out a significant part of the argument, I am not going to penalize them for simply not having a counter interp.
 * 3) I have had tons of rounds in which debater N has a theoretical objection to the 1AC. Debater A then responds with a counter interp in the 1AR. By then end of the round, I have offense that links to both interps, and no reason to prefer one shell/standard over the other. Do not leave me in this position.Find ways to layer the theory debate and explain how standards interact.
 * 4) No new 2AR theory. Duh?
 * 5) I am very interested in critical discussions on the theory/education level, like Freire.
 * 6) Some theoretical questions <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">precede other theoretical questions. For instance, if you read two shells, and your opponent reads a shell that says you can't read two shells, then that shell would have to be evaluated first. However, slapping the phrase "meta-theory" is often nonsensical. Tell me why your theoretical objection comes before another.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Speed: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Slow down for authors and tags. No matter who is flowing, the faster you go, the more stuff is going to be missed, just keep this in mind. I evaluate speaker points based on the tournament. If I think you should win the tournament or make deep out rounds, you will be at a 29.5 and up. Yes, I have and will give 30s at locals.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Notes: <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">I study and write about feminism quite a bit. I get really upset at rude, in-round behavior. Please remember that the debate space is an educational sphere for you //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">and //<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"> your opponent.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Feel free to ask any questions before the round, or at dylan.philolife.cavanaugh@gmail.com