Shameless Plug:

HIGH SCHOOLERS AND COACHES — IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A COST-EFFECTIVE DEBATE CAMP THIS SUMMER COME TO THE UH HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP (HDW). We have some of the top faculty from around the country teaching an intense two-week course for Congress, LD, CX, PF, and WSD with a one-week Individual Events portion.

More information -https://uh.edu/honors/Programs-Minors/co-curricular-programs/debate/debate-workshop/

Background/other notes:

University of Houston (2023-current)

Jordan High School (2020-2023)

I am a Policy debater at the University of Houston.

I competed mainly in Congressional Debate for all 4 years of high school with sprinkled experience in WSD and Extemp.

Please put me on the email chain (for policy people) and ask me for my email before the round starts.

Don't call me "judge" -- call me Cooper :D

Pronouns are they/them

CX/Policy:

Policy v Policy: I like these debates, generally. I think what’s key for me in evaluating these is proper framing of impacts and sufficient ev comparison. re-highlighting is great. Have clear weighing, give me clear overviews in 2AR’s and 2NR’s as to where your winning the debate.

Policy Aff v K: I really like these debates. I think the key here is the FW debate and sufficient aff analysis of neg alternatives. The aff needs to have a clear defense of policy action being able to resolve the K. Typically these debates devolve into incrementalism vs the alt (assuming the aff wins their FW interp). In this case I need very explicitly why either incrementalism is preferable to the alt or why incrementalism is fundamentally unable to resolve the K. On the link debate, the more specific the k link is the better. Typically, it’s pretty easy for the aff to weave out of non-1AC specific links so yeah. On impact calc here, if the K has a good link, the threshold for me voting on extinction outweighs is high. Perm arguments are more compelling to me alongside linking to aff to working to resolve the K.

K Aff v K: I love these debates lol. However, I’m not that familiar with every lit base. Therefore, explanations and overview of each K in the debate is key for my ability to adequately evaluate them. In these method debates, I just need good solvency deficit claims to either side. Or maybe more specifically adequate reasons as to why the starting point of the aff or the neg is the best starting point in order for understanding the topic.

General K Notes: In College thus far I've ran K’s on both the aff and the neg. I’m most familiar with Queer Theory, Settler Colonialism, Security, Weaponitis, Cap, and Ableism. I also have a surface level understanding of Afro-Pess, but for some of the more nuanced aspects of this argument im going to probably need a bit more explanation compared to other K’s. Outside of these arguments, my exposure to other lit is minimal. That does not mean I wont vote on other K's, it just means they need to be explained well.

T: Im gonna be so for real. I do not like T debates, but ill still vote on it. Interp's should be obvious and self evident. I define this as generally being realistic. I think most K aff's are mostly topical as long as there is a clear justification as to why the aff is the best or better starting point than pursuing a policy based aff or a topical plan. I'm willing to give a good amount of leeway to K aff's as long as they do what they need to on the T flow.

Theory: For theory arguments i need pretty explicit reasons as to why I should vote on it to reject the team. There are a lot of instances where if the violation is not significant enough I would definitely buy the argument that I should just tank speaks and not reject the team (obviously this does not include racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc.). This is more referring to things like one theory argument I heard recently that was a "power-tagging" violation. Justifications like "its unfair because we have to read their evidence", or anything to that effect, wont ever win in front of me because you should be skimming through evidence already. So yeah, just be realistic when banking rounds on theory violations. Most often, violations should be really obvious and justifiably unethical for me to vote on them.

Congress:

good arguments matter more to me than presentation. For me presentation is more of secondary "tie-breaker" when i have to compare competitors who both present good arguments. But good speaking will not discount bad argumentation and clash on my ballots.

A good argument in congress is not just a independently strong argument, but also needs to be a relevant point in context of the round. There should be a clear overview that connects your speech to the rest of the speeches in the round.

The later in the round you go, the more important it is to narrow down you speech to the main issues/points of clash in the round. That being said, if you argument is more constructive and less able to build off of other people arguments, then you should probably go earlier in the round. After the early speeches, every speech should begin to build off one of another through clash and connections to big constructive arguments in the round.

That isn't to say you shouldn't bring up new angles and ideas mid round, but there has to be a reason as to why what you are saying is important/needed in the round. And you should clearly communicate to me and the round why that is the case.

If you piggy-back off of other speakers, do something to add depth to what they said as opposed to throwing more evidence into their train of thought. Don't just rehash arguments, obviously.

I don't like when mid or late round speakers blatantly ignore previously made arguments that contradict/conflict with their argument. Make sure that you address every argument that interacts with your own. Also a side note, if you spoke early, use question blocks to poke holes in arguments that contradict yours. Its a good way to make sure your voice is still being heard late in the debate even if you spoke earlier.

Overall, just make sure you (both in speeches & questioning) engage the round by keeping your content relevant as the round evolves in addition to strong refutation of previous speakers.

Lastly, be respectful. Respect pronouns. Avoid agitation and be professional. Lack of composure or ignorance will definitely drop you on my ballot.

Have fun, its congress :D

LD:

Basically ditto what was I said for Policy.

Only difference is that I have no actual experience competing in LD although I have judged it.

So expect that my interpretation of LD rounds are done from a mind that is very oriented by Policy tech standards. This means I may not easily pick up on technical issues in round. That doesn't mean I won't vote based on them. But it means i need clear articulations of (especially FW debates in LD that are about criterion and values) what your winning and what the other team is not or has dropped.

PF:

I mainly care about strategy in PF. There are too many rounds I’ve seen were both sides make an initially decent argument and then refuse to interact with the others for the whole debate. I need to see weighing of all kinds in order to know whose argument is more important (assuming you can’t prove it to be wrong). Weighing will for sure make it 10x easier for me to vote for you if you do it properly. By the end of the round their should be clear points you've won on or at least that you can tell me you won on to make my job a lot easier.
I also like good presentation and professionalism in PF. Don’t be rude or condescending, that’s not going to make you look cool and smart lol. On a simular note, i don't have problems with spreading as long as you are clear and you sound good. Regardless of speed you need to still be sure to emphasize important points, links, blocks, etc.
for arguments themselves I need good framing, warranting, and impacts. By the end of the first speeches I should have a very clear grasp of the arguments in the round and there shouldn’t be a need for those arguments to be continuously readdressed and reframed throughout the rest of the round (because of vagueness/confusion). Long story short, if by the end of the first speech a can't grasp what the narrative of your arguments are then that's a problem.

Recently, Ive learned K's are thing in PF now? maybe thats always been a thing... idk. I need a clear explanation of how the K works in context of the pros policy action and also need a good reason why I should vote for the K over the magnitude of the pros impacts or why the K outweighs. To my knowledge, the concept of fiat is not a thing in PF. Therefore, I feel that i can only judge the round based on what is the "best argument". This makes judge instruction key. Make it clear what voting on the K does or why it wins the round.

WSD:

In Worlds I'm a pretty balanced judge: I love it when worlds speakers know how to present their case in an engaging way, but I don't like worlds teams that don't have the argumentation to match strong presentation.

Refutation and weighing are key.

By the end of both second speakers speeches i should already have some picture of what the main clash in the debate is as well as the groundwork for a path to ballot (early weighing, identification of the main clashes, etc.).

Be very clear with your arguments through the use of strong link chains & examples.

Also be nice to each other :D

Extemp:

You need good analysis that goes at least a step beyond whatever the article said during prep time.

I'm also looking for good delivery and persuasion.

don't crack jokes on topics that maybe are a bit more serious, make sure your intros flow well and match the topic that your speaking on.

I love jokes if they are funny and appropriate for the topic though.

Don't be afraid to utilize rhetoric and a bit of passion depending on the topic.

Overview and Relevant Experience: I debated in the previous century, both in high school (Topeka High, Kansas) and college (University of Louisville [NDT]). I also coached at the high school level (as a volunteer, also in the previous century) and spent my fair share of time working summer camps and even contributed to handbooks (now antique collectibles). I was away from debate (directly) for two decades on either side of the century mark but stayed connected on the periphery in a number of ways. In the real world, I run an investment firm that I founded nearly 20 years ago with a focus on energy and real estate. I resurfaced in the debate world in Georgia (some might say, with fright, “He’s Back. . .”), as my children are of debate age. I’m excited to reengage.

Debate is the most important academic pursuit of both my high school and college years. I believe that policy debate – and the skills learned as a participant – is almost singularly responsible for my success in life as an investor, a company leader and nearly everything else I have accomplished. Likewise, I believe interscholastic debate remains a key predictive element of success for middle school, high school and college students.

Macro Views: While no mid-50s human can be free of preconceived ideas or bias, I will do my best to listen to each debate round with an open mind and without a predetermined construct to critique the round. While I am most comfortable evaluating competing policies, I do not – by definition – consider myself to be constrained inside a policy making paradigm.

At the end of the day, my role is to determine who performed better in the debate and “won” the preponderance of the arguments based on the rhetoric in the round. It is important to note that, for me, debate – whether policy, forum or some other permutation – is an exercise in advocacy, rhetoric and persuasion.

While speed is fine (it is unlikely that you can clearly talk faster than I can flow), speed at the expense of clarity is not. While I am not opposed to reading evidence during or after a round, I shouldn’t have to (and probably won’t) if it is for the sole purpose of making sense out of a constructive or rebuttal that sounded more like a piston engine at a race track than intelligent syllables from a smart advocate. Breathe, intonate and inflect in a way that makes it easier and more fun for all of us. (I may or may not ask to be added to the email chain. . .the important point being I should not need to be added to the chain to help me decide the debate). I may feel compelled during a round to suggest that a speaker be more CLEAR. . .however, I may also simply “look confused” which should be visual cue enough to result in an adjustment.

Individual points are the result of a lot of the above as well as the perceived credibility and “debate IQ” of each speaker. While I may range lower for egregious violations of decorum, ethos or real futility related to extra-debate issues, 27 is about as low as I go and, generally, well presented effort gets you a point above that. 29 and 30 are reserved for excellence and exceptionalism that I know when I see it. Clash, argument resolution in rebuttals, exceptional “spin and explanation”, a “good story”, humor and creating a debate environment that is enjoyable are all important considerations in the speaker point calculus.

One a priori consideration. . .we live in a world with more than enough incivility. While debate is meant to be a critical evaluation of competing arguments, such a construct can occur in an environment of mutual respect and individual honor. Argumentative aggression is fine; personal aggression and disrespect are not.

Idiosyncrasies

Stock Issues/Prima Facie Burdens: Generally speaking, these issues work themselves out in the course of a debate round, however (as a relic, previous century debater), they do resonate with me. Affirmative has to justify the resolution which presumptively requires (absent compelling theoretical arguments to the contrary) the affirmative to successfully defend a topical example of the resolution. That is, the affirmative should be topical and topicality is (presumptively, but not absolutely) a voting issue. I will listen to topicality debates, especially those that are well developed with both definitions and standards. (Hint: The best topicality arguments clearly explain how definitions are linked to standards and the standards are well defined and supported). Generally speaking, topicality is a jurisdictional question. Arguments as to why that should or should not be the case are welcome.

At the beginning of every debate, I enter the room with an understanding that the affirmative must justify an example of the resolution with an advantage over the status quo and presumption rests with the negative team. Those “understandings” can be challenged and debated during the round as long as it is understood that relaxing or abandoning long-standing tenets of the activity require compelling reasoning.

As an important aside, clash is a highly underrated and oft-forgotten debate concept. I love a great case debate (aka line-by-line) , especially one that "extends" (pun intended) into rebuttals. In addition, new arguments in second-constructives are fine (you are still constructing, after all).

Conditionality/Hypothesis Testing and Other Variable Strategies: Fine, as long as you understand and explain the theory justifying the position and are ready to argue the theory when challenged. Good theory debates are just as important as good policy debates. While I listen to “voting issue” arguments, absolutes can be difficult to prove and fairness would generally dictate that if you can win a round on a “single” argument, the opposite could be argued successfully.

Counterplans: Absent a compelling reason otherwise, they should be intrinsically competitive and offer a non-topical alternative to the resolution. Those offering the counterplan generally have a burden to show the proposed alternative is exclusively superior to a combination of the affirmative’s example of the resolution and the counterplan alternative (e.g. permutations). As noted herein, theory discussions are welcome but they must be well developed and those proposing the alternative must have command of the concept and principles.

Kritik/Critique: Fine with all of the understandings above. If you are going to advocate a position, you should be prepared to advocate the position competently, including the substantive nature of the position as well as the process/theoretical implications of the argument in the debate.

At the end of the round, I am looking for the team with the best “Debate IQ” which is a combination of superior argumentation, creativity and ethos. The roadmap will be unique in each round but the destination will always be the same.

Final Notes: As noted earlier, I am here because of my love for the activity and belief in the critical importance of debate’s integral role in education and maturation of our children. My goal is to be objective and to vote for the best debate team in each round (with every round being an independent event). I also believe strongly in post-round interaction and critique and will answer any fair and objective question following a round. (If you don’t want your teams to exposed to post-round discussions, please strike me).

My final words: Civility matters. Be kind to your opponents, your coaches, your judges, your partners (and especially your parents). . .to everyone in this community. And, have fun. . .Most importantly, have fun!

Email: cedmonds@enerecap.com

speak good do good