Chris Cohen; Assistant Debate Coach, Lynn University

Competitive History

Cherry Creek HS - 2012-2016: Competed in Speech events, mainly Oratory and Humorous Interp.

Lynn University - 2016-2020: Competed in NDPA, BP, NFA-LD, and IPDA debate along with speech events at larger tournaments. Former President, Speech Captain, and Captain. Helped launch Sports Policy Debate as a new class for students in the Sports Management program.

Judging - I have judged multiple NSDA, NPDA, IPDA, and BP tournaments, and have judged every speech event.

Basic Judge Info

-Speed: Speech & Debate at its core is a communication activity, and spreading takes away from that communication. I will rarely drop someone for speeding, but be aware of your speaking and ensure clarity is not lost when doing so. Do note that the threshold for speed has more leniency for college/post-graduate tournaments than middle/high school. [FOR ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: Do not speed; mics often worsen clarity even in normal conversation]

Debate Information

Debate Overall

For the most part, I am a tabula rasa judge and will vote on what you tell me to vote on. Even if it is an argument I dislike, if both teams tell me it is the most important thing in the round, it will be the most important thing in the round. That said, do not attempt to fiat the judge in round.

Structure and content are equally important. Every part of an argument is important for the argument to stand.

I am a big fan of Meta debate. If you want the round to be about why something in debate rules or theory is wrong, feel free to make it so. Debate is a communication activity, so as long as there is clash and communication, the round is staying true to the purpose of debate.

Remember to draw out impacts and tell me why they matter. Don't just tell me X happens, tell me why X happening is bad or good.

Jargon is good and saves time, but for some aspects you need more than just the jargon. "Normal means" is fine by itself, but "We meet" doesn't stand by itself. Also, don't just tell me you are cross-applying something, explain why the cross-application is valid.

Giving clear voters is important. It is your chance to tell me what you feel should be weighed first when making a decision.

Policy Debate

As A Whole:

Debate is partially an educational activity about learning how others think and seeing what they consider important. Thus, I believe when carrying out a plan (or counter plan), impacts should look at what is best for the actor and the world as a whole. For example, as Aff, If a Res is "The NFL should lower concussion rates", and the plan is 'NFL is now 2-hand touch' don't just say why the impacts are good for the athletes, world, science, etc, tell me why it is good for the NFL.

Aff:

You get to run what you please. If you want to run a performative Aff, you can (but do it well or you will likely be voted down), if you want to run the most topical, down to the letter of the Res plan, all the power to you. When it comes to Aff Ks, because they go against the putting yourself in others shoes educational aspect of debate, they need to meet a higher standard in both structure and content in every level of the argument.

I am in the school of thought that Aff has right to define and Neg has right to challenge. If you want to define "USFG" as Utah State Farmer's Guild, go ahead (but be ready for a T press).

Neg:

Ks - Need to be explained well. Don't just throw a name out at the FW level, but explain the thought. Again, debate is a communication activity, so communicate what the FW is and means. Of all arguments Ks, are one of the two biggest where having bad structure can drop you.

Ts - Yes, Aff has right to define, but Neg has right to challenge for fair definitions. Don't just list standards, explain them. Also, give examples of plans Aff could have run that meet your definition.

CPs - Of all arguments CPs, are one of the two biggest where having bad structure can hurt you. Need to have content on every level of the CP shell or I'll be hesitant to vote for it. Having Ad(s) on a CP is preferable to only "doesn't bite DAs".

DAs - Do what you see fit here. While I prefer non-stock DAs, I have nothing against stock DAs.

F-Spec - If you are going to run this on a United States Federal Government res, I need a strong, clear brink story or it will likely have no effect in my decision.

Other - Any other procedurals or other arguments are fine, but remember structure.

Speech Information

As A Whole:

While being an audience member, don't intentionally stonewall.

Try and avoid blocking yourself to walk backwards [unless done intentionally to show fear/timidness].

Acting Events:

Blocking is important, but should never be bigger than the story itself.

Don't mimic a phones with the pinky and thumb - that isn't how you hold a phone.

Have character voices as crazy as you want, but make sure your voice still projects.

Softer volumes go a long ways for dramatic effect, but make sure you can still be heard.

Try and avoid any blocking that ends up deflecting your voice away from the judge and audience

Rhetoric Events:

If you have a visual aid, please don't have your speech revolve around it. It is just an aid.

Remember, speed variation and pauses can speak volumes if used properly.

At a glance:

I spent my undergrad years focusing on primarily NPDA and LD. In this time, I was exposed to a vast array of positions and am receptive to most of them as a judge. My academic background is in critical theory, twentieth century continental philosophy, and bio-politics. For this reason, debaters should feel comfortable running any kritik without reservations. I am fine with theory, Ts, and most procedurals, but I need voters and standards read. DAs do not have to be topic-specific, but they do need to have clear, specific links. Politics/political capital DAs in particular need to contain substantive links that contain a timeframe. Speed, if you MUST, but I am generally opposed to it, and believe it can abusive and target those with auditory processing difficulties. Be nice.

Theory/CP/T:

I am receptive to most theory. However, I am unlikely to vote on A/F/E spec arguments unless there’s a real case for significant loss of ground or a problematic amount of vagueness. I will vote on potential abuse positions. For metaphorical resolutions, I tend to default to Aff’s resolutional analysis, but I can be swayed if the argumentation is good. I would prefer to evaluate interpretation debates on the standards put forward, so try to go further than simply “education” or “fairness”. I will vote either way on conditionality, convince me. This goes for “PICs good”/“PICs bad”, as well; I’ll vote either way. I’m fine with T as an RVI.

Plan and case:

Advantages and DAs should be structured and have extended impacts. Debates that stay in the post-fiat world will be, for me about weighing impacts. Impact scenarios are really important. I’ll vote on things like nukes or economic collapse if the link story is compelling.

Ks:

I love Ks, and wish I’d utilized them more in my time as a debater. Aff Ks are fine as long as justification is provided in the framework. I will not vote down an Aff team simply because they refuse to defend a resolution. As a student of contemporary philosophy, I am generally comfortable with most of the literature that accompanies these positions. I don’t need too much time spent on framework. I will primarily be worrying about the links, implications, and alternative. It should be noted that I prefer Ks with pre-fiat implications. I will also have a slightly higher threshold set for Ks that are in my arena (Foucault, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari). But this should not dissuade you from running “biopower”, “Dark Deleuze”, or “BwO” if you’re comfortable with the underlying theory and can show depth in argumentation. Kritiks that are run well and have good alts are awesome. Role of the ballot here can be sufficient, I’m fine with using my ballot as “praxis”.

Performance:

Performance positions are fine, I’m skeptical of arguments that urge judges to vote down alternative forms of debating because we need to “protect it”.

Identity:

I appreciate the value of identity positions and the role they play in providing debaters space for advocacy, but I think they’re difficult to adjudicate on.

Demeanor:

I get frustrated with debaters that are cruel to their opponents, as this is an educational activity that should result in everyone being uplifted. Everyone is taking valuable time to compete with each other. Just be kind. I take the physical and emotional security of debaters seriously; I understand how draining the activity can be.

I am a reformed policy debater. I love theory but hate speed. I believe that debate is a communication activity, and that speeding makes the activity inaccessible and less valuable. That said, I am usually OK with critical positions run on the Aff or the Neg (though Aff K need to have substantial "role of the ballot" discussions). Topicality, along with other procedurals, is always a fun position; I especially prefer good debate on the standards/reasons to prefer level. Counterplans do not have to be non-topical (with theory to support), but mutual exclusivity is important to avoid a permutation, which usually does not have to be understood as advocacy (but this can be challenged).

The two areas, besides my distaste for speed, that might be understood as more conservative would be regarding the neutrality of political assumptions and my skepticism of performative advocacy cases. I am open to political arguments from anywhere on the political spectrum. I will not take as an assumption "Trump bad," nor the contrary "Trump good." Defend these positions. For performance, perhaps my skepticism comes from the fact that I haven't yet heard it run well. Perhaps you can convert me. Identity positions have a higher threshold to clear.

With value-based debate, I expect clear discussion of the value and criterion. I enjoy getting into the philosophical weeds. I am a philosophy professor who specializes in 19th and 20th century continental philosophy. I also have an economics background, so feel free to get wonky.