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.

Background

It is hard to say what I'll be judging you in. I have done a little bit of a lot of things, and a lot of a few things in debate. I would say I identify first and foremost as an extemper. Though this is becoming less true the more debate I coach and judge. My primary debate knowledge base comes from time coaching and judging college parliamentary debate (NPDA). If you are looking to categorize me as one type of judge that's not a bad bet. I've dabbled in CEDA/NDT/CX. Judge a lot of IPDA in college, that's become my primary debate coaching/judging area. PF and LD at high school tournaments with the occasional college LD mixed in.

I would say I am average in theory debate, familiar enough with K's to follow and solid at flowing as long as it is clear and not incredibly fast. If I ignore you and start reading your speech doc exclusively, that's a sign to slow down.

General Philosophies on Debate

In my opinion the debate round is an educational space first. Now, how you define that can be up for debate. I will always appreciate a topical aff, but am not afraid of non-topical positions if they are justified through an educational framework and establish that there is no topical version. I can follow critical theory, and generally enjoy hearing those cases, but will also love and follow political, economic, social etc. Impacts.

As far as topicality goes, I usually lean aff. If you are neg and the aff isn't topical, run T, just make sure to prove abuse and the impacts that it had in round. You might have an alternative definition that is better, but if you don't tell me why it matters then I won't vote for it. Prove the abuse, prove the impact of that abuse. I'll consider both in round and out of round impacts. Don't ignore a T because you think I won't vote for it. I will vote for a topicality press even if I think it's bogus, if the aff just ignores it.

If it is a policy round/format, I am looking for stock issues. Aff has the burden to prove their plan solves a legitimate problem that isn't going away anytime soon. That plan ought to be topical. I am pretty flexible around different formats of debate and approaches to resolutions. But if you are running a policy case make sure your stock issues are present.

NOVICE DEBATERS... Just because it is in the/a provided packet doesn't make it topical. The packet is to help you learn debate, not to help you avoid topicality arguments. You should learn those too.

IPDA Folks... I will vote on a topicality/abuse argument if it is well run and clearly abusive. But most of the time it comes more down to which definition wins to help frame the decision. I think in all my years in IPDA I voted on T once and it was because it was reasonable and not responded to.

Specific Evaluations

These will be framed from a negative position but you can cross apply them to the aff as well.

Dis ads: I will evaluate impacts above all else. Give me something tangible and real. On the other side, if you are attacking a DA or Advantage the link chain is a good place to find offense. I am not a fan of super low probability impacts. Magnitude, timeframe, scope... good to go... low probability though are easy to dismiss for me.

The K: I like Ks. I think it is important to question all our assumptions about government, power, even debate itself. Have a good alt. I don't vote on a K because the government sucks... we all know that. I vote on a K because you provide me something else to vote for.

Counter plans: Similar to the K, I need something else to vote for. I won't vote Neg simply because you poke holes in the Aff case (stock issues being the obvious exception), I need to vote FOR the neg not AGAINST the Aff. I will buy squo arguments, but I usually prefer a counterplan. PICs are also good.

Condo: I think conditionality is stupid. Pick a position and go with it. I know the neg has the right to the squo but if you spend half the round embracing the fact that the status quo is bad for a counter plan I won't buy a sudden switch. that's not fair to the Aff and it's not fun for me if you to suddenly change your advocacy. I am aware that this is not some debate formats allow/encourage conditionality. If for some reason I am judging one of those... just remind me that that's the norm.

IPDA: I will lean on whatever judging criteria you give me. I have, on numerous occasions, voted against the better debater (or even one that won most the points) because the framework went uncontested and favors one side. I won't do work for you, so please be direct and don't just concede definitions because your worried about time.

Speaker Points

Here is how I think of speaker points. The round is won and lost off the evidence and argumentation. Speaker points are about style, execution and how what happens happens. So...

Clarity: I have to be able to understand your arguments. That means they need to be organized clearly and stated concisely. I also have to be able to understand your voice. I can listen fairly quickly but it must be articulate, clear, and have intent behind it.

Tag Development: I look for tags that are concise and direct. Tell me exactly what you are arguing. I am trying to evaluate the round, if I have to take extra time to interpret your tags that brings you down. I always tell my debaters "Don't be cute, be explicit". A cute tag is fun, but won't help your points and might confuse me.

Cross X: Cross X is extremely important in policy debate. It is the only time that there is a direct exchange. My first rule is that you must be respectful to the other debaters. If you are rude then you will be dropped. I also look for strategically used questions. What do you achieve and how do you use it. I would say a strong cross X can do more for speaker points than any one piece of case construction.

Delivery: Mostly an IPDA (sometimes parli) thing. Talk to me. Don't spit evidence and hope that I listen. Look me in the eye and explain to me how this all works. But do not think that "even, calm and indifferent" will win me over. If you are talking about sensitive topics and seem indifferent, I will assume you don't care and you will lose points. Passion is just as important as composure.

General: Graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2021 with a double-major in computer science and anthropology and now work as a product manager in the tech industry.

My email is amoghden@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain and/or reach out with any questions!

Debate Background: 4 years of circuit policy debate at Milpitas High School (2013-17). 3 years of NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2018-21).

During my time in college, I coached a handful of high school policy/LD teams and worked as a lab leader (leading labs focused on K arguments) at the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics. Since I graduated and started working, I have been completely removed from debate.

GENERAL VIEWS:

DISCLAIMER: This paradigm was originally written for policy debate but is pretty consistent with how I evaluate ANY style of debate. Let's be real, every debate event seems to slowly adopts new "progressive" norms that make it closer and closer to policy anyway.

Debate is a game. It is influenced by (and often a microcosm of) the social, political, cultural, and libidinal constitution of what we might call the "real world", but is ultimately an argumentative testing ground for ideas.

The only thing I know to be "true" as a judge is that I have been tasked to listen, evaluate, and arrive at a decision based on the presentation and clash of ideas. The scope / nature / telos of those ideas, how I interpret and evaluate argumentation, and what influences my decision-making is entirely up for contestation. I can be compelled to vote for anything regardless of its simplicity, complexity, or absurdity without any preconceived biases as long as it is not racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

My personal debate career and involvement as a coach was primarily invested into kritikal styles of advocacy, but I do not have any fixed stylistic biases. I will not have a problem understanding and evaluating traditional arguments, but this is an area of research in debate that I did not have too much personal investment in. My policy debate background means I generally won't have a problem flowing speed.

I really do NOT care about trivial debate etiquette. Dress however you want. As long as you're not compromising the safety or access of people, say whatever you want, however you want. Call people out on their BS.

WHAT I LOOK FOR IN (GOOD) DEBATES:

- Tech > truth (but I will only evaluate arguments that I understand).

- Organization, specificity, evidence comparison and argument interaction are key to amazing debates.

- Write my ballot for me - judge instruction is the mark of a well executed rebuttal speech. Frame every part of the debate: tell me how I should be viewing and evaluating arguments and why. Leaving it up to me (or your opponents) to make assumptions or connect the dots to influence my decision may not bode well for you.

- The debate is NOT determined by evidence in a vacuum; it's up to YOU to explain (or spin) warrants, regardless of how amazing (or unfortunately terrible) your cards may be.

- Cross-x is an underutilized art. Destroy your opponents with precise and impactful questions. Be one step ahead. Be witty!

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS:

TRADITIONAL/POLICY AFFS:

I may not be intimately familiar with topic-specific political processes or terminology, so be sure to explain things and be precise. I would much rather you read one or two well-developed and strategic contentions than several mediocre ones.

I believe that the art of nuanced technical debate is dying, but I'm hoping you prove me wrong. I've noticed a troubling trend of terrible evidence, mediocre internal link explanations, and extensions without substance in the traditional rounds I've had the opportunity to judge. Put in the effort to explain and contextually apply the arguments made in your evidence. Question the merits of bad evidence. Spend the time to frame and impact out your arguments in detail.

Well developed weighing mechanism / impact framing arguments will go a long way with me. I don't presume to know what is good and what is bad - it's up to you to tell me and justify why things are important and what my ballot ought to prioritize.

Because the traditional affirmatives I judge usually end up being versus the K, here's some specific thoughts on those debates:

- Defend your affirmative. Pivoting to spike out of offense is not as strategic as you think. Avoid resorting to vague permutations and/or shifty link defense.

- Utilize and apply your affirmative. Take the time to make specific link/impact turn arguments.

- Engage the criticism. Failing to answer the negative's theory of power is usually an instant recipe for a loss.

- I have a high standard for perm articulation from the affirmative, and link/alt explanation from the negative. Do NOT let lazy K teams get away with bad link analysis or incoherent explanations of their theory.

- Substantive 2AC framework arguments are more likely to influence my decision than whiny procedural stuff.

KRITIKAL AFFS:

I have debated against, affirmed, written, and judged a wide variety of K-Aff arguments and fully encourage you to experiment, push the boundaries of literature and debate as an activity, and ultimately use this space to advocate for things of interest or importance to you. If you're looking for an idea of literature bases with which I am most familiar, check the "Kritiks" section of my paradigm.

I will NOT uncritically vote for you because I like your choice or style of argumentation. Although kritikal affirmatives enable potentially valuable breaks in the traditional form/content of debate and the resolution, I believe that there is a level of investment with the literature and knowledge about debate as an activity necessary to successfully challenge the ideological protocols of the game itself and/or operationalize the game as a site of critical contestation.

Take the time to make smart and offensive application of your Aff's criticism, and explain the unique friction between your methodology and the Neg's argumentation. Supplement your blocks and cards with smart in-round analysis and contextual application of your theory. Going beyond the jargon and providing concrete examples in support of your theory of power and/or methodological strategy will typically go a long way.

KRITIKS:

Successful kritik debating at a minimum requires intimate familiarity with the literature, and clarity and depth in explanation. The best kritik debates happen when you generate unique links to the affirmative and are able to build intricate link-stories by strategically referencing specific warrants, lines, or moments in your opponents performance, argumentation, and evidence and tying it back to your theory of power. Going beyond the jargon and providing concrete examples in support of your theory of power and/or methodological strategy will typically go a long way. I will reward you generously with speaks if you are well versed in your literature and are able to demonstrate your knowledge by making smart and strategic analytic claims and arguments in your speeches and cross-x.

I believe form precedes and determines content: I often begin my decision-making in kritik debates by asking what the telos (or perhaps a lack thereof) of this debate is, and what interpretational lens I ought to use to understand and assess what content means in relation to the presentation of the affirmative and alternative.

I have a general understanding of most criticisms read in debate, but my personal knowledge and interest lies in criticisms pertaining to identity politics and structural positionality. Most of the scholarship I've engaged with as a former debater and coach pertains to various branches of theory speaking to Anti-blackness, South Asian identity, Settler Colonialism, Feminism, Queer/Quare/Kuaerness, and Disability. Although I'm not AS well-read up on the edgy and often unintelligible works of old white dudes, I've judged or been personally involved in a fair share of those debates too and much of the scholarship I engaged with as a debater had its ideological roots in the works of Lacan, Heidegger, Marx, Deleuze, and Baudrillard among others. If YOU understand your criticism and YOU do the work to explain and contextualize your offense, you'll probably be fine.

DISADS/COUNTER-PLANS:

The more specific and less generic your strategy is, the happier I will be. I have no pre-defined standard for what makes a CP legitimate or abusive. Absent theory arguments, I will evaluate and happily vote on any DA and/or CP strategy without any predispositions.

I may not be intimately familiar with topic-specific political processes or terminology, so be sure to explain things and be precise.

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

The path to a ballot in these debates (on either side) is to do real comparative work on the level of interpretations and standards. Dive into the nitty-gritty analysis: what type of norms do we want to set in this activity/topic? Why? Why does it matter if the violation is true? What is the threshold to meet your interpretation?

Unlike many judges, I don't mind frivolous theory arguments. This is YOUR debate. If you want to make the debate about some trivial procedural question and you do it well, I'll happily vote on it. If you see strategic value in wasting your opponent's time with frivolous theory, more power to you. Likewise, if you make a well-developed argument that frivolous theory is bad, I'll happily vote on that too.

I think innovative or unconventional topicality and theory arguments (on either side) can make for very interesting discussions about the norms of the activity: arguments about identity, body politics, performativity, agency, boredom, death, simulation, educational models etc.

Impact analysis is CRITICAL to winning T/Theory debates:

Fairness is NOT an intrinsic good. What does fairness mean? Fairness for whom? Why is fairness something we ought to preserve in debate? What is fairness an internal link to?

Education is also NOT an intrinsic good. Why should the telos of debate be to produce education? Why does your model of debate have the ability to produce "good" kinds of education? Why are the specific skills we gain from your model good, and how do we operationalize them?

FRAMEWORK (VS. K-AFFS):

I spent my entire debate career arguing against Framework, but I think there's a lot of merit to these debates (on both sides).

What does your interpretation and model of debate look like in context of the affirmative's criticism? What types of norms and rules do we want to set for the activity? You probably have to win that the affirmative's theory about the way power operates (at least within the debate space) is bad AND/OR fundamentally not testable.

Impact analysis is CRITICAL to winning framework debates:

Fairness is NOT an intrinsic good. What does fairness mean? Fairness for whom? Why is fairness something we ought to preserve in debate? What is fairness an internal link to?

Education is also NOT an intrinsic good. Why should the telos of debate be to produce education? Why does your model of debate have the ability to produce "good" kinds of education? Why are the specific skills we gain from your model good, and how do we operationalize them?

I've debated for three years in high school parli and three years in college parli. I have experience with varsity LD in both hs and college circuits. I coach debate for Illini Forensics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I will go for most arguments you can think of if the other side doesn't respond to them (strategy agnostic save for explicit/intentional verbal attacks). I don't like most K's in parli (especially not lazy stock ones) but I'll still write a K ballot if it's well-connected to case/provides a good pre-fiat level debate. Don't spread if you're in a limited prep event, and generally don't be an ass hole in round. Any other questions feel free to ask me.

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.