Cook,+Tracey

1. Topicality - It’s important, but it shouldn’t be abused. I’m not a fan of listening to five throw-away T shells at the top of the 1NC, but that doesn’t mean you can’t read them at all. I default offense/defense and competing interpretations but I’m not closed off to reasonability. When reading the shells, please don’t go top speed. It’s unnecessary and makes it flowing impossible. T is a reason to reject the team. RVI’s are mostly silly, but I’ll listen to them and not penalize you for them. I’m very convinced by arguments from both sides that reflect upon the health of debate as a forum and the impact that non-topical affirmatives on the activity and on a team’s ability to debate well.
 * __ First, here’s a general argument overview of what I find acceptable. __**

2. Disads – I like them. Generics/politics are fine, case specific disads are better. Please compare evidence and point out bad evidence.

3. Counterplans – Counterplans are awesome. Use them to your advantage. Solvency advocates are preferred, conditional planks are not. I do dislike certain counterplans, but I’ll listen to them if that’s what you’ve got- things such as word PICs, consult/condition CPs, veto cheato, etc. I have to admit that functional/textual competition debates are not something that I really understand well, thus, if you need to engage in this debate to win the round, slow it down and dig in on it.

4. Kritiks – Not my strong suit. I know a decent amount about more commonly run kritiks, but if you run a K that’s a bit more nuanced, be sure to explain. I don’t understand psychoanalysis, so let that be a word of warning. I like it when a debater can step outside the buzzwords and jargon of a kritik and still make sense. If you can do this, I will enjoy your K debate markedly more and be much more inclined to give you good speaker points. Framework debates are valuable and I expect them to be used to determine how I evaluate the round. Affs that fail to engage in a framework debate against a K that requires one will find themselves up a stream without a paddle. When arguing framework, both sides should remember that I value the activity of debate and the ability a team has to debate effectively. As such, target your framework arguments at that concept.

5. Theory – I’m okay with most theory, conditionality, fiat-related arguments, severance, etc. The theory arguments I am less comfortable with are textual vs. functional competition. If you decide to take that route when arguing for or against a CP, I need slower debate, lots of explanation, impacted arguments, examples, etc. For all theory, don’t speed through it. Blips may not be caught – so if you’re running theory in your 2AC, please put warrants into your argument so I have something of substance to flow and time to flow it. she loves condo bad, she is kind of a hack for it actually.

6. Performance - I don't particularly like performance arguments. I default that affs need a plantext and a topical fiated plan action. Performace affs should argue against that as they see fit. I need to know, coherently, what happens if I vote for you and what my ballot does.

**__ Second, general things to note – __** 1. This is important so I’m putting it first. For the teams who are paperless/using a computer in round, I have a very low tolerance for paperless teams who do not execute paperless well. I know things sometimes go wrong but I highly advise you to not waste time. I get annoyed when the round becomes 15 minutes longer because things aren’t in proper working order. Make sure your viewing computer is in order, flash your whole speech to the other team, label things correctly, mark cards, etc. __If flashing time gets out of hand, I will start taking it out of prep time. If cards are not marked, I will decrease your speaker points. If your viewing computer crashes, I will not take it out of prep, but depending on the situation your speaker points will decrease or I will just be annoyed with you. If the computer you are using to give your speech on crashes at any point in time, I have no problem with stopping speech time/not taking prep time for you to restart your computer so long as it takes 4-5 minutes or less. However, if you did not save your speech/flow and lost it because of said computer crash, you will have to give your speech without it.__

2. I’m okay with speed, but slow down on analytic arguments you have written down. I don’t like you speeding through things if they are important points to make. If you’re not clear, you will be warned. I won’t stop flowing you, but lack of clarity may prevent me from flowing you correctly. PLEASE differentiate between your arguments, get louder, slow down, number, say AND really loudly, something.

3. You can sit down and speak, that’s fine.

4. Tag team cross-x is allowed. However, if you steal your partner’s cross-x, it will reflect in your speaker points. I love cross-x. Let me repeat that – I love cross-x. Make it interesting; make your questions pointed; have an agenda. Don’t waste my time.

5. Please don’t yell during cross-x. That said, be competitive and assertive, but not mean.

6. I don’t like calling cards after the round. Do your best to make sure that’s not necessary.

7. New arguments are not allowed in rebuttals. New arguments are allowed in constructives – 2AC/2NC included. I’m not a fan of entirely new 2NC strategy. However, advantage counterplans for 2AC add-ons, new disads, those are all okay. In the last speeches, I’ll protect the negative team as much as I can, although, I have a large lee-way for extrapolations made by both sides.

8. Impact calculus. Do it.

9. I do think defense alone can win you the round. You don't need offense, though it's nice.

**__ Third, speaker points – I give them. __** 26 – You were awful 26.5 – You need a substantial amount of work on important issues 27 – You need some work on important issues 27.5 – You may need some work, but you were average. 28 – That was pretty decent 28.5 – Wow, you were a pleasure to listen to 29 – Excellent 29.5 – Fantastic 30 – I won’t be giving any of these.

**__ Fourth, here’s my key to getting high speaker points: __** 1. Differentiate between arguments 2. Look up when you do analysis 3. Have an on-fire cross-x 4. Be funny 5. Make smart arguments 6. Don’t be mean 7. Compare evidence 8. Be strategic 9. (For paperless teams) Execute paperless well