Cox,+Will

**Update for Blake '13** Some bullet points you may be interested in:
 * I still tend to think that theory is boring, and, additionally, didn't run it much when I was debating, and so am not your optimal theory judge. This is not to say that I won't vote on theory or that I don't understand it -- I will and I do. But, if you asked me on the spot to come up with five reasons why ground controls the internal link to predictability, I couldn't do it. This means that, if you're going to run theory (especially if only for 'strategic' reasons), you're going to want to slow down for your fourth one sentence-long justification re why AFC is literally the best thing that has ever happened to debate.
 * I really, really like 'critical' debate (and really, really despise that label). I vastly prefer it to util throwdowns, and I firmly believe that Korsgaard's philosophy belongs to a tradition of thought whose only calling is the justification of domination. Which is, of course, not to say that I won't vote for our friend Christine (or that you can't get 30 speaks running her) -- just that I think her views are incredibly misguided and regressive, and would be oh-so-happy to be told by you why you think they are. If you want to make sure I'm familiar with the particular author(s) you wish to run, then just ask me before the round starts.
 * If you're going to run pre-fiat stuff, I'd really like to hear (1) how pre-fiat impacts interact with post-fiat impacts, and (2) how I evaluate competing pre-fiat impacts. If your opponent calls you out on not doing enough work here, I'll probably be receptive to it.
 * Assuming a round with two competing, fairly 'normal' frameworks, I would like to hear some well-thought-out framework comparison. E.g., one well-explained argument re how your theory better provides a solution to the problem of the infinite regress of moral justification than your opponent's, is to be much preferred to six different ways of wording 'no bright-line'.

I will vote on anything that is won in round. Tell me how to evaluate arguments. Weigh impacts. 'Debate well.'
 * Overview **

I default to viewing the resolution as a question of desirability rather than as a question of truth, but I will use whichever framework is won. I am open to 'alternative' ways of viewing the resolution; i.e., you may run things like performance cases, irony, or whatever crazy thing you think up. I should clarify however that stupid nonsensical positions still won't win, given of course that your opponent can point out that they are stupid and nonsensical. Please give me a clear evaluative mechanism, justify it well, and make use of it.
 * Framework**

Go as fast as you want. Probably slow down to make sure I catch important parts. Clarity is necessary; I will prompt you with 'clear' if it is lacking. If you're not sure if I'm following (due to lack of clarity), watch me as I flow.
 * Speed**

I prefer voting on and listening to theory arguments that address actual abuse, but will vote on 'strategic' shells as well. I will default to a competing interpretations viewpoint.
 * Theory**

I am relatively well-read in critical literature. Do not avoid clarification questions from your opponent. Merely regurgitating the hyperbolic rhetoric with which many of these authors write is not sufficient. I understand that most of these arguments cannot be boiled down to a two sentence explanation without losing what truly makes them distinctive, but please do your best not to be obfuscatory.
 * Critical Arguments**

I'm pretty standard. 27 is average, 25 is bad, 30 is amazing. Speak clearly, signpost, extend arguments, weigh impacts, explain how positions interact, blah blah blah. Again, 'debate well'.
 * Speaker Points**

I will do my best to evaluate all arguments objectively, and not punish you for doing something that I don't necessarily 'like' -- something that I might not have run back when I was debating -- but total objectivity is probably impossible, so I may as well make my personal preferences explicit.
 * Personal Biases**
 * I tend to think theory is boring.
 * Obviously abusive positions are annoying and no fun for anyone.
 * Non-stock positions are dope.

Offensive arguments/behavior. I know that this is totally and completely subjective, but, sorry, I just won't do it. Things like moral skepticism are fine; asserting that "the Holocaust was totally chill" is categorically not.
 * Exception to Objectivity**