Cooper,+Ryan+C

Debated 5 years Broad Run '13 James Madison University '17

1. Unless given an alternative framing, my decision will be based on an offense/defense paradigm. This means if you don't do the work on the impact level, you're leaving it in my hands to decide who comparatively outweighs. Please, please don't do this. I'd rather intervene as little as possible. 2. I tend to debate the K, and chances I won't be taken by surprise by whatever hippy frufru you decide to read in front of me. That being said, I am definitely more influenced by critiques that seek to reconfigure how we debate, or what debate should look like. That being said I'll evaluate any argument, but without clear articulation of how your alternative functions to resolve whatever impact you isolate, it'll be hard to win my ballot. 3. While I'd consider myself a more left-of-center debater, I still have had plenty of 2NR's on DA + Case, and you should by no means feel discouraged from running your A-strat; I will listen to and vote on anything, as long as it's an argument. 4. Unless given a reason to do otherwise, I will default to competing interpretations on theory debates, and I evaluate them similar to a disad debate. Your standards are impacts and you must compare them if you want to win the argument. I feel like most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, but I can be convinced otherwise. It is difficult for me to pull the trigger on potential abuse, but as said previously, if you win the argument you __can__ win my ballot. 5. Speed is fine, but if clarity becomes an issue I will warn you once before I stop flowing. Anything that I can't hear, I can't evaluate. 6. If you choose to make a mockery/parody/satire of debate, you won't //automatically// lose, but it will be a more uphill battle. You can indict fiat and critique impact hyperbole without being superfluous. If you ARE superfluous and don't substantiate WHY your performance/satire/etc. is important, I will find it very difficult to vote for you. 7. Every debate is a performance, every speech act is a narrative -- there is nothing intrinsically better or worse about spreading through 9 minutes of Kagan or a detailed personal account of oppression. Both can be argued to have their advantages. I won't disqualify or under-evaluate anything simply because it doesn't fall under a traditional category. 8. I will vote based on the flow. This means it's far easier for you to get my ballot if you do the line by line in order, and if you stick to your road map. Organization is important in a high speed debate. 9. There is a fine line between being assertive and being an asshole. Cross-Ex is not meant to demean your opponents, don't use it that way. [EDIT] I didn't think I'd have to ever say this, but your advocacy in debate doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you advocate something blatantly racist. sexist, ableist, heteronormative, or anywhere in between, you can expect some repercussion. Example: Saying "I'm only doing this for the sake of argument -- but maybe slavery wasn't bad" doesn't cleanse you of the fact you just said slavery was okay.

If there's anything I haven't covered, feel free to ask me before the round starts