Cottrell,+Cade

Updated November 2016:

Yes I know my philosophy is unbearably long. I keep adding things without removing others, the same reason I was always top heavy when I debated. But I tried to keep it organized so hopefully you can find what you need, ask me questions if not.

**"I have two minutes before this round starts" Version:** I debated in high school for Lone Peak, and in college for UNLV, I coached Foothill high school and now coach Green Valley high school. I have debated at the NDT, I have read, debated and judged arguments from all over the spectrum and on both sides. I genuinely don't have a big bias for either side of the ideological spectrum. I can keep up with any speed as long as its clear, I will inform you if you are not, although don't tread that line because I may miss arguments before I speak up. If you remain unclear I just won't flow it.

Want to debate in college? Ask me about, I'd love to help.

**Few Notes you should know:**

**Speaker Points:** I have had a dilemma with speaker points, and have recently changed my view. I think most judges view speaker points as a combination of style and substance, with one being more valuable than the other depending on the judge. I have found this frustrating as both a debater and coach trying to figure what caused judge to give out the speaks they did. So I've decided to give out speaker points based solely on style rather than substance. I feel whichever team wins the substance of the debate will get my ballot so you are already rewarded, so I am going to give out speaker points based on the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos of a debater. Logos implies you are still extending good, smart arguments, but it just means that I won't tank speaks based off of technical drops (like floating pics, or a perm, etc) as some judges do, and I won't reward a team for going for those arguments if I feel they are worse "speakers", the ballot is reward enough. Functionally it means that I probably give more low-point wins than some judges (usually at least one a tournament), but at least you know why when looking at cumes after tournaments.

**Debate is a rhetorical activity.** This means if you want me to flow an argument, it must be intelligible, and warranted. I will not vote on an argument I do not have on my flow in a previous speech. I am a pretty good flow so don't be scared but it means that if you are planning on going for your floating pic, a specific standard/trick on theory, a permutation that wasn't answered right in the block, etc. then you should make sure I have that argument written down. I might feel bad that I didn't realize you were making a floating pic in the block, but only briefly, and you'll feel worse because ultimately it is my responsibility to judge based off of what is on my flow, so make those things clear. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

I rarely want to be on the email chain because I don't want to tempt myself into letting whats in the docs alter how I evaluate your actual rhetoric. If you want me to read evidence, please say so, but also please tell me what I'm looking for. I prefer not to read evidence, so when I do after a round it means one of three things: 1. The debate is exceedingly close and has one or two issues upon which I am trying to determine the truth (rare). 2. You asked me to read the evidence because "its on fire" (somewhat common and potentially a fire hazard). 3. The debate was bad enough that I am trying to figure out what just happened (all too common).

**Prep time:** I generally let teams handle their own prep, I just ask that A. You stop time once the flash drive is out of your computer B. Don't be stealing prep (this goes for either team), this is especially prevalent now since people can be constantly pulling up evidence and typing out things, if you're blatantly doing this, it may affect your speaker points, waiting for the speech to start before continuing to type is not that difficult.

**Neg:** I am very much in favor of depth over breadth. Generally that means less for a 1NC but it means I find myself thinking "I wish they had consolidated more in the block" quite often, and almost never the opposite. If you don't consolidate much, you might be upset with the leeway I give to 1AR/2AR explanations. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate. Pick your best arguments and go to battle.

**DA's:** I enjoy disad heavy debates. Teams that beat up on other teams with large topic disads usually have one of two things: A. A large number of pre-written blocks B. A better understanding of the topic than their opponents. If you have both, or the latter, I'll quite enjoy the debate. If you only have the former, then you can still get the ballot but not as much respect. Small disads very specific to the aff are awesome. Small disads that are small in order to be unpredictable are not. I am of the "1% risk" disciple assuming that means the disad is closely debated. I am not of that disciple if your disad is just stupid and you are trying to win it is 1% true, know the difference.

**CP's:** I have a soft spot for tricky counterplans. That doesn't mean I think process/cheating counterplans are legitimate, that just means I'll leave my bias at the door more than most judges if you get into a theory debate. That said, theory is won or lost through explanation, not through having the largest blocks. Generally I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, that doesn't mean you can't win of yours isn't, it just means if it is then you probably have some theoretical high ground. I also think if you have a specific solvency advocate for the counterplan (meaning a piece of evidence that advocates doing the counterplan, not just evidence that says the counterplan "is a thing" [I'm looking at you, Consult CP people]) you should utilize that both as a solvency argument and as a theoretical justification for the counterplan.

**T:** I think the way reasonability is construed is sad and a disservice to the argument. I perceive competing interpretations as a question of whose interpretation sets the best standard for all future debate, and reasonability as a question of whether the aff harmed the negative's fairness/education in this specific round. Under that interpretation (Caveat: This assumes you are explaining reasonability in that fashion, usually people do not) I tend to lean towards reasonability since I think T should be a check against aff's that try to skirt around the topic, rather than as a catch-all. T is to help guarantee the neg has predictable ground.

**Theory:** This is a discussion of what debate should look like, which is one of the most simple questions to ask ourselves, yet people get very mixed up and confused on theory since we are trained to be robots. I LOVE theory debates where the debaters understand debate well enough to just make arguments and use clash, and HATE debates where the debaters read blocks as fast as possible and assume people can flow that in any meaningful fashion (very few can). I generally lean negative on theory questions like condo (to a certain extent) and CP theory args, but think cp's should be textually, and more importantly, functionally competitive, see above.

**Framework/T against Non-Traditional Aff's:** I have read and gone for both the Porcedural Fairness/T version of this argument and the State Action Good/Framework version of this argument many times. I am more than willing to vote for either, and I also am fine with teams that read both and then choose one for the 2NR. However, I personally am of the belief that fairness is not an impact in and of itself but is an internal link to other impacts. If you go for Fairness as your sole impact you may win, but adequate aff answers to it will be more persuasive in front of me. "Deliberation/dialogue/nuanced discussion/role switching is key to " sorts of arguments are usually better in front of me. As far as defending US action goes, go for it. My personal belief is that the US government is redeemable and reformable but I am also more than open to voting on the idea that it is not, and these arguments are usually going straight into the teeth of the aff's offense so use with caution. TVA's are almost essential for a succesful 2NR unless the aff is clearly anti-topical and you go for a nuanced switch side argument. TVA's are also most persuasive when explained as a plan text and what a 1AC looks like, not just a nebulous few word explanation like "government reform" or "economic engagement over racism". I like the idea of an interp with multiple net benefits and often enjoying reading a 1NC split onto 3-4 sheets in order to seperate specific T/FW arguments. If you do this, each should have a clear link (which is your interp), an internal link and impact. Lastly, I think neg teams often let affs get away with pre-requisite arguments way too much, usually affs can't coherently explain why reading their philosophy at the top of the 1AC and then ending with a plan of action doesn't fulfill the mandates of their pre-requisite.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**K's:** These are the best and worst debates. The bad ones tend to be insufferable and the good ones tend to be some of the most engaging and thought provoking. Sadly, most debaters convince themselves they fall into the latter when they are the former so please take a good, long look in the mirror before deciding which you fall under. I have a broad knowledge of K authors, but not an in depth one on many, so if you want to go for the K you better be doing that work for me, I won't vote for anything that I don't totally understand BEFORE reading evidence, because I think that is a key threshold any negaative should meet (see above), so a complex critical argument can be to your advantage or disadvantage depending on how well you explain it. I also think the framing args for the K need to be impacted and utilized, that in my opinion is the easiest way to get my ballot (unless you turn case). In other words, if you can run the K well, do it, if not, don't (at least not in the 2NR).

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Edit: I think it usually helps to know what the judge knows about your critique, so this list below may help be a guide:

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I feel very comfortable with, know the literature, and can give good feedback on: Nietzsche, Wilderson, Moten (& Harney), Security, Neolib, Historical Materialism, Colonialism (both Decoloniality and Postcolonialism), Fem IR,

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I have both debated and read these arguments, but still have gaps in my knowledge and may not know all the jargon: Deleuze and Guattari, Hillman, Schmitt, Edelman, Zizek cap args, Agamben, Warren, Ableism, Kristeva, Heidegger, Orientalism, Virillio

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">ELI5: Baudrillard, 3rd wave fem args, Killjoy, Bataille, Bifo, Zizek psychoanalysis, Object Oriented Ontology, Spanos, Buddhism, Taoism,

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Aff:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I'm fine with these. They don't excite me any more or less than a topical aff. I think the key to these aff's is always framing. Both because negatives often go for framework but also because it is often your best tool against their counter-advocacy/K. I often am more persuaded by Framework/T when the aff is antitopical, rather than in the direction of the resolution, but I've voted to the contrary of that frequently enough. This won't affect the decision but I'll enjoy the aff more if it is very specific (read: relevant/jermaine/essential) to the topic, or very personal to yourself, it annoys me when people read non-traditional aff's just to be shady. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Answering K's: It is exceedingly rare that the neg can't win a link to their K. That doesn't mean you shouldn't question the link by any means, permutations are good ways to limit the strength of neg offense, but it means that impact turning the K is almost always a better strategy than going for the permutation for 5 minutes in the 2AR. I think this is a large reason why aff's increasingly have moved further right or further left, because being stuck in the middle is often a recipe for disaster.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I'm more than willing than most to vote aff if case outweighs a dropped disad so you better make sure to defend the walls, that's where a lot of high school debates go wrong.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Bad aff teams wait til the 2AR to decide what their best arguments are against a position. Good aff teams have the round vision to make strategic choices in the 1AR and exploit them in the 2AR. Great aff teams have the vision to create a comprehensive strategy going into the 2AC. That doesn't mean don't give yourself lots of options, it just means you should know what arguments are ideally in the 2AR beforehand and you should adapt your 2AC based off of the 1NC as a whole. Analytical arguments in a 2AC are vastly underused most times.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Last Notes:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Making me laugh will get you extra speaks. I generally give the highest speaks for smart debaters, that have smart analysis, and impact it well. I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. If you only need a minute in the 2NR/2AR then just use a minute, cover up any outs, and finish, I believe in the mercy rule in that sense, rambling or shoving it unnecessarily in their face won't help your speaks. I've tried to keep up wth community inflation of speaker points, but mine might be just slightly below average. I also adjust my scale to the subjective quality of the tournament pool, not just a uniform objective standard, I try to keep a similar bell curve for every tournamment that way. I rarely give below a 27 unless a debater is rude or another external reason, 28 is my average 3-3 debater. 28.5+ means I think you have a good shot of breaking. 29 means your one of the best speakers at the tournament, if not the best. 29.5 is for Gods, the person I want to see win 1st speaker, or a 29 debater that is also hysterical.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Things I like: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- A+ Quality Evidence (If you have such a card, and you explain why its better than the 3+ cards the other team read, I accept that more willingly than other judges) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Brave (strategic) 1AR/2AR decisions <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Politics disads that turn each advantage <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- If you are behind, I'd much rather you cheat/lie/steal (maybe not steal) than give up. If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Neg blocks that only take 1-2 flows and just decimate teams. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Controlling the "spin" of arguments (I'll give a lot of leeway) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Kazoozles (Bring me one???)

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Things I don't like: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Not knowing how to flash evidence in a timely manner! <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Reading arguments with little value other than trying to blindside teams (timecube, most word pics, etc.) Being shady RARELY pays off in debate. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Being unclear <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Horses (Stop acting like they're so goddamn majestic, they're disgusting) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Shaved Coconut