Forrester,+Cody

Cody Forrester

 * Affiliation: Georgetown University, formerly La Costa Canyon**
 * School Strikes**: La Costa Canyon

Topicality:** I'll definitly vote on it if its compelling, but I also might have a higher threshold of what i consider a good T debate. I'll evaluate reasonability if the aff gives me a reason to, same goes for args like dont vote for potential abuse, but i personally believe it should be a competing interpretations debate. Make sure you weigh fairness vs. education and compare your standards to theirs or else ill probably end up favoring the affirmative in a jumbled t debate
 * Philosophy


 * Theory Args:** Same as topicality, go for whatever you want. Don't think you'll win a theory debate if the original argument just consists of throwing out buzz words like moving target and neg flex without any articulation. Do the same impact comparison as on T


 * Kritiks:** I'm not a big kritik debater. This doesn't mean i won't vote for them, it just means I might not be as familiar as some are with your authors. I think there are times when kritiks are strategic, and times when its obviously a fall back to doing a lot of research against the aff. Have specfic links, and it should interact with the affirmative in some manner.


 * Performance:** Not something im passionate about, but if you can defend it and articulate a good reason your performance is a reason I should vote for you, then I'm open to it.


 * Style**: Speed ok, trying to go to fast and being unclear, mumbly and quiet isn't. If you're not clear, I'll yell clear at you once. Don't be rude, it really pisses me off, and it just makes debaters and judges not like you. And don't totally take over for your partner, its obvious and bad for your speaks as well. Being funny is good, i enjoy that.

I also find the most frustrating rounds to settle are when teams talk past each other--read each other's cards and make it easy for me to resolve each argument in your favor. I like case specific strats like unique PIC's, DA's, case turns etc. and it will help your speaks and keep me paying attention.
 * General Notes:** i find that most debates are lost on impact comparison, whether it be on theory or substance. Extending your impact and saying you have the biggest magnitude etc. isn't comparison. Tell me how your impacts interact with theirs and warranted, comparative reasons why they come first.