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.

Debate Background: I am currently the Director of Forensics at Florida State University. My educational training is in rhetoric and my debate background is heavily influenced by policy debate. The past six years I have coached and judged BP, civic, IPDA, Lincoln-Douglass, NEDA (traditional and crossfire), NPDA, and policy debate. Prior to that, I competed, coached, and judged in policy debate. Participating in all of these formats has shaped my general views on debate.

My general view of debate:

I think that affirmatives should defend the resolution and that the negative should engage and refute the affirmatives. I am interested in arguments not argument types. I am thrilled to listen to good arguments, bring out your best research be it competing policy options, critiquing the form of debate, challenging the team's discourse, ideology, or methods, topicality, or theory. If you have me as your judge bring your best argument rather than try to adapt to what you think I might like.

Flowing info:

I flow debates with paper and pen. I only look at the speech doc during the round to clarify information for my flow or if something is being referenced in cross-ex. Additionally, I will not use the speech doc to fill in arguments that I could not clearly hear.

Things to know when debating in front of me (I'll update this as I figure out more):

Permutations need a full explanation. "Perm: Do Both" is not an argument. You do not get to say three words in one speech and then elaborate on it in a later speech. If you are trying to make a permutation then you need to develop your full argument and explain how the arguments are being done together and how they are not mutually exclusive in the speech.

I am open to form arguments on debate. For example, a negative team has 2 counterplans, 2 disads, and 2 kritiks that all contradict each other, the affirmative reads evidence about how speech acts must be viewed as a totality, conditionality does not exist, and argues that this means that judges cannot separate arguments. Then the negative can't simply say the arguments are conditional and kick out of the arguments that they want. To win the neg would have to win that speech acts are separable, conditionality does exist, and therefore they are kicking out of arguments.

Stockdale High School '20

UCSB rn

Currently do parli in college. I did policy debate on the national circuit in high school, but am familiar with pretty much all forms of debates. I know prefs are annoying so this will be short.

All debates

Any argument you want to read works. Impact weighing is an absolute must.

Policy

I know a lot people automatically are looking for how judges feel about the k. In terms of where I land on the spectrum of policy to kritikal arguments, I probably more comfortable with policy arguments but this does NOT mean I hate the k. I will vote for anything that is well explained, but a lot of times teams will rely on the judge being very familiar with their scholarship in order to get away with their tricks and skip explanations; if you do this you will lose. If at the end of the debate I'm not scratching my head about what the advocacy/alternative does and what your thesis is because you explained it well, you'll be in good shape.

Disad stories should be well explained. Don't just read a zillion 1 sentence cards; actually answer the specific warrants of the link and uniqueness claims of both sides. It's possible for there to be zero risk for something.

The counterplans can be either textually or functionally competitive. If you're reading more than 4 conditional positions I'd probably think that's abusive; but if you win condo good than hey, condo's good.

T is incredibly strategic, more teams should go for it. That being said, if the t debate just is a bunch of the classic one liner arguments being thrown by both sides, then it is incredibly difficult to evaluate. Also, in framework debates, aff should be sure to answer the 1nc warrants thoroughly and not just put 15 disads on the flow.

Impact turn debates are always a good time.

Final word: I personally can't stand excessively long overviews. Its become a trend to hide a bunch of offense in there and then go onto the line by line and answer stuff with "that was in the overview." Do your explanation and whatever you else you feel you need to do at the top, but please do the line by line on the line by line.

I start at 29.0 and work my way up. If you slip in a sports joke I'll boost you an extra 0.05. I'll tank you if you say something hella problematic.

Pronouns: She/they

Tldr; It is important to me that you debate the way that is most suited to you, that you have fun and learn a lot. While I have preferences about debate, I will do my best to adapt to the round before me. The easiest way to win my ballot is lots of warrants, solid terminalized impacts (ie not relying on death and dehumanization as buzzwords), clear links, and a clean as possible collapse.

• For more lay/policy-oriented teams: Please sign-post, give warrants, and solid impacts. There is value in drawing attention to death and dehumanization but I would prefer that you speak beyond death & dehumanization as buzzwords -- give me warranted impacts that demonstrate why death & dehumanization are voting issues. Please make your top of case framing clear and try to stay away from half-baked theory positions. I would prefer a full shell with standards and voters, please.

• For critical, tech, and/or speed-oriented teams: I love it all -- I am open to the criticism, policy, performance, theory; whatever you want to do. Please keep in mind that my hearing is getting worse and being plugged into the matrix makes it even harder to hear online. I may ask for some tags after your speech if you spread. I probably default to competing interps more so now on theory than before but I’ll vote where you tell me to.

• For non-NorCal debaters: I recognize that debate varies by region. I’m happy to accommodate and do my best to adapt to your style. That said, I’m more likely to vote on a clear and consistent story with an impact at the end of the round.

Longer threads;

• RFDs: I’m better with oral feedback than written and I will disclose. The brainpower to write RFDs is substantially more draining than talking through my decision. I think it also opens up opportunities for debaters to ask questions and to keep myself in check as a judge. I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

• Kritiks: are important for opening up how we think about normative policy debate and a great way to challenge the performance/role-playing of policy debate. Given that many kritiks are an entry point for students to access policy-making/the debate space I am less enthused about opportunistic or abusive kritiks and arguments (which mean it's safe to assume I see debate as a pedagogical extension of the classroom not as a game). Please do your best to explain your position, especially if it’s somewhat obscure because the farther I get away from being a competitor, the less familiar I am with some of the stuff out there. For reference, I was a cap debater but don’t think I will just vote for you if you run cap. I actually find my threshold on cap ks is much higher given my own experience and I guess also the mainstream-ness of the cap k. I have a strong preference for specific links over generic ones. I think specific links demonstrate your depth of knowledge on the k and makes the debate more interesting. Please feel free to ask questions if you are planning on running a k. I think identity-based kritiks are * very * important in the debate space and I will do my best to make room for students trying to survive in this space. I’m good with aff k’s too. Again, my preference for aff k’s is that your links/harms are more specific as opposed to laundry lists of harms or generic links. It’s not a reason for me to vote you down just a preference and keeps the debate interesting.

• Theory: Please drop interps in the chat and make sure they are clear. As stated above I probably default to competing interps, but I’ll vote where you tell me to. RVIs weren't a huge thing when I was debating in college so I'm honestly not amazing at evaluating them except when there's major abuse in round and the RVI is being used to check that. So if you’re sitting on an RVI just make sure to explain why it matters in the round. I have a preference for theory shells that are warranted rather than vacuous. Please don’t read 9 standards that can be explained in like 2.

• Other items

• I do not flow after the timer. I've noticed this has become more and more abused by high school teams and I'm not into it. So finish your sentence but I won't flow your paragraph.

• Off-time roadmaps are fine.

• Very specific foreign policy debates are fun and extra speaks if you mention what a waste the F35 is.

• I will drop you or nuke your speaks for racist, transphobic, sexist, or just generally discourteous nonsense.

• POOs -- Since we're online, I don't pay attention to chats (unless reading interps) and I don't recognize raised hands. So, please just interrupt and ask your question. It's not rude, just makes things easier.

If you've read this far lol: sometimes knowing a little about my background helps debaters understand how I approach debate. I debated parli (& a little LD) at Santa Rosa Junior College for 3 years. My partner and I finished 4th in the nation for NPTE rankings and had a ridiculous amount of fun. Then we debated at San Francisco State University for our final year with the amazing Teddy Albiniak -- a formative experience and a year I treasure deeply (long live the collective! <3). Our strengths were materialism and cap, and very specific foreign policy debates.

Go gaters

I debated NFA-LD for four years at Central Michigan and graduated in 2019. I am open to hearing any and all arguments. However, I am less persuaded by abstract Kritical arguments than I am by on-topic, case-specific, policy-oriented arguments. I prefer depth over breadth-- negative should collapse to 1 or 2 arguments in their last speech. On T, potential abuse can be a voter and I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability. Debaters should give a clear roadmap before beginning their speech. I am fine with speed as long as both debaters can keep up, but you should be comprehensible. Call drops. Do impact calc. Tell me where to vote and why. Don't be a jerk.