William Cooper
Lecturer in Instructional Communication, University of KentuckyExecutive Director, Kentucky High School Speech League
Associate Director of the UK Tournament of Champions--Speech
NFL Two-diamond Coach

formerly of Manchester Essex Regional HS, MA, and Arthur L. Johnson HS, NJ.
Current as of 2016

The Short Version:
Make good, clear, true arguments. Each resolution has lots of them on both sides. Make them. Make them clearly, and make them in a well-thought out manner. I'm not fond of blippy arguments, nor of spreading. I am judging your analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the topical material. Make sure your cards say what you say they mean, and that you explain, in your own words, why the cards matter. Tell me why you win the round. I don't care if you call it "voters", or "points of crystallization", or "focal points" or "Bronx cheers". Give me reasons. If you're giving voters down the flow, then say you're going to a voter BEFORE you state it.

The Longer Version
I am open to all effective argumentation, but do not assume that your listeners understand the groundwork behind those arguments. I should not have to fill in the steps of your argument. Likewise, tell me where on the flow you are; I can follow you all around the flow, but....guide me and your opponent with you; if we lose you, you may very well lose. Roadmaps and signposts are both welcome.

I have a very low tolerance for plagiarism, including verbatim team cases.

Speaker points are simple, and my scale is based on my expectations for a given tournament. Absent any tournament rule to the contrary, I start at 26 points, and go up and down from there. I do consider both the tournament and the division in awarding points. I don't expect to give many 30s during a season.. A 30 means I felt "WOW" at the end, or someone pulled off some tour-de-force of public speaking.

I pay attention to definitions, observations, burdens, overviews, and underviews. These need to be addressed--many times one sentence can take care of each of these.

Theory arguments are based on something which happens in the round, including the opponent's definitions and/or interpretation of the resolution. Calling one's opponent on a theory violation is a call for judge intervention--it survives the round regardless of rebuttal, extension, and/or impact analysis. It can not be dropped. You are asking me to decide if something is fair or unfair. I will do so. Tell me--briefly--why it's unfair, and then do what you can to win the round on substance.

If you choose to argue from a very specific stance in the round, you are welcome to do so. Note, however, that an opponent who establishes a general truth/validity on her side of the flow will defeat the use of a specific focus. One can not establish a general truth from a single example--even if the truth is, in fact, true for that single example. That said, I have voted for plans in the past when the round has gone that way.

If you are going to talk rapidly, talk clearly. If you are not clear, I will stop flowing. If I stop flowing, you didn't say it. I will fold my arms across my chest. It is your job to adjust.

I will be very unsympathetic to arguments which say, either explicitly or implicitly, that we should 'ignore' or 'disregard' the US Constitution. Having sworn four oaths to defend and protect the Constitution, I find I can't accept an argument which asks me to ignore it. Make good solid constitutional arguments, not just brush it aside.

Affiliated School: duPont Manual High School in Louisville, Kentucky

Experience:

I have judged the LD varsity division frequently since 2012. I was a judge at 2013 & 2015 NSDA Nationals and 2014 CNFL Nationals.

Overall, I prefer more traditional arguments but can handle progressive elements such as speed when you maintain a strict clarity. Weighing, collapsing down the the important issues in the 2AR/2NR, and generally refraining from a messy debate will both help me decide the clear winner and help you as a debater. In terms of speaker points, I will award you extra speaks if you are humorous or entertaining; in general, be polite to your opponent (rudeness of any form is strongly discouraged) and ---especially because debate is a speaking event--- present your arguments well to earn more speaks.

If you ever have further questions, feel free to talk to me either before or after a round.

Speed:
I prefer for you to speak relatively slowly when possible, but I can understand spreading if you're clear. If I am unable to understand your arguments, then I will not be able to vote on them; when appropriate, I will yell "clear".

Flowing:
I am not the world's greatest at flowing. However, I may ask for your case after the round.

Theory:
I will buy theory only if there is actual abuse, and I will know when your case is really abusive. I believe that running superfluous theory is abusive on its own, so please, run theory only when appropriate and keep the theory debate clear (I'm not fond of evaluating messy theory debates). I do not believe that there is an implicit interpretation if a case is abusive; in general, I am not prone to voting for extremely abusive cases.

Framework:
I am not a philosophy major, which means that if you want to run a complicated framework, you must explain to me the meaning of your framework in rhetoric that a non-philosophy major can understand. As long as I understand the arguments, I can vote for you.

Arguments:
In general, make true arguments that are well-warranted and logical. I prefer if you keep your contention-level arguments actually relevant to the topic, since I believe that the topic was chosen so that you can debate about the topic, not something else.

Kritiks:
I am not extremely familiar with K's, and from my understanding of them, I do not recommend that you run a K in front of me. However, if you do wish to run a K, you must explain it to me well; if I don't understand it, I won't vote on it. Especially if your K can be run on any topics, I won't vote on it.

Disads:
I will buy disads as long as you have a clear, logical link chain.

Plans:
As long as you run them well, plans are fine.

I hope that you both can have fun while you debate; good luck!

History: I debated 1 year of LD in high school and 6 years of CX in college (eligibility is a funny thing). I never received traditional debate training, and my college career had many more debates about debate than debates about the resolution. Don't assume I will be familiar with anything, don't assume I will flow in the same way you do, or automatically evaluate your impacts the same way you do.

I believe that debate is at its best when there are no rules. As a community, we have adopted a great number of norms that pass as rules - time constraints, the resolution, frameworks - but those are very rarely capital-R Rules, capital-L Laws. Please, then, as a personal favor to me: do not accuse your opponent of breaking rules unless you are 100% sure that it is a rule (such as no CP in PF).

Everything else can be debated out.

Speed: I don't expect this to be an issue for KY tournaments, but just in case: if you are trying to go fast, you are probably speaking too fast for me to follow comfortably. And, while I do not believe that debate should be first and foremost a persuasive speaking activity, I do believe that it should be accessible. This means that artificially constructing barriers through fast rates of delivery is a big no-no in my book. Many people naturally speak faster when they are arguing, or speaking passionately about something - that is perfectly fine. Running speed drills to cram in an extra card is not.

That's it. That's what I want you to know most. I don't, so far as I know, have much of an opinion as a judge on anything else but are more than welcome to ask me any questions you want once you and your opponent are in the room.

Knowledge is power.  I am a citizen judge.  I do not flow.  Remember that always!  One team forgot this, and promptly lost the round.  I work in the technical field of engineering. I have intelligence so I will have researched the resolve topic prior to that day.  The round will be judged fairly and without bias. Know your topic.  Know the topic well. 

 

Court Case Judgment: I, as “judge and jury” will hear both sides of the resolve.   The two teams are “lawyers” presenting their cases before me - for or against the resolve (prosecution and defense).  I will then to pass on a “verdict” – win or lose.  The one who wins is usually determined by how effective the team presents their case with sound arguments.  “Evidence” aka knowledge is quite effective in proving your “client” resolution for the win.            

 

Know your audience.  I repeat.  I am a citizen judge.  I also have a theater background.  Give me some style.  This is what I look for straight from the “Guide to Public Forum Debate” 2009 National Forensic League.

 

Delivery~Effectivedeliveryiscriticaltoimpacttheargumentsforacitizenjudge.Practicedeliveryinfrontofordinarypeople:teachers,parents,relatives,friends,non- debateclassmates.Heedtheiradvice.Iftheytellyouto slowdown,slowdown;iftheytellyoutoquitrepeating yourself,startyoursentenceswiththesubjectandavoid compoundcomplexsentences;iftheytellyoutoenunciate moreclearly,practicewithapencilinyourmouth;ifthey tellyoutolookup,makesureyouremembereverythingaboutthepersontowhomyouaretalking;iftheytellyou tospeakwithvariety,practiceemphasizingkeywords, especiallyactionverbs;iftheytellyoutospeaklouder, practicewithcottoninyourears.Inotherwords,do everythingbeforeadebatetocultivateagooddelivery.

 

Be creative.   I may have judged several teams within a tournament already.  What has not been said that day?  Give me something different to take notice of your team.  Make it solid.  Think “outside the box” with your arguments.  This is what “outside the box” looks like through the following simple example: 

 

For Example:  You are on a deserted island and you have 3 wishes.  No wishes for rescue allowed.  Most people will think of food and shelter. The third question usually answers for companionship or clothing.  At the end you are still on the deserted island.  Outside the box thinking is through these examples from an actual “what if” question.     

1.      On my island I want a 5 star hotel with the staff and supplies to support it. Answers shelter.    

2.      I want a top of the line chef at my premium restaurant. Answers food.    

3.      I want a cruise ship to visit the island several times a week.  Answers companionship.  NOTE THIS:  It also answers getting on and off the island with ease, delivery of food and generation of an income from the tourists.   

 

 

Remember, I am not a teacher, a coach or a past high school debater.  I just do this for fun.  

I prefer persuasion over speed and substance over technicality. Please do not spread. If I can't understand your arguments and evidence, you will not score well. Be sure to define appropriate terms, and structure your contentions so that they fit comfortably with your value and value criterion. I prefer the use of both logical reasoning and convincing evidence in arguments and contentions, so I don't mind the use of cards in cases and rebuttals. I believe that the argument should be easy to follow and concise (no policy style cases).

I'm Troy Thisler. My pronouns are he/him/his! It's nice to meet you!

Note: this is updated from my judge philosophies because I haven't figured how to edit that...
I've debated for four years in Lincoln Douglas at Fort Lauderdale High School in Florida. I currently attend at Northwestern University (Go 'Cats!). I kinda sorta coach/help out FLHS.

I'm black and queer. 

During my high school debate career I have, reached elimination rounds at Harvard, The Crestian Classic/Tradition, The Florida Blue Key, the Florida State Tournamentas and the TOC bid round at Bronx, getting a TOC bid at the Crestian Tradition. I qualified to NFL Nationals as a junior. I also did one tournament in college policy, but we don't talk about that. 

I also have experience as a lab leader at the University of North Texas's Mean Green Workshops.

Short Version for All Events

I never the best at flowing, so the blip strategy that a lot of the debaters on the circuit have developed doesn't really work for me. If I don't understand the argument because of your lack of clarity or because you really suck at explaining complex arguments, I will have a very high threshold for voting on it, even if it was "cold dropped conceded" throughout the round.

I'm a lot more well versed in critical race literature and queer theory than most other arguments. (To give you an idea, I mostly ran intersectionality Ks my junior year and hip hop affs my senior year). This does NOT mean you pull out your Afro-pessimism K in front of me and call it a day. 

Oh and for speaks.

For LD:

This is the event that I'm most familiar with.

The "if you're reading this 5 minutes before the round" version: Running excessive amounts of theoretical spikes, blips, full theory shells without the violations, ect. is a fast way to make me sad. If you're going to be breaking that "new sweet race aff/neg" just because I'm judging you, don't. Do what you're best at unless it involves being really sketchy. If that's your game then please switch it up. Theory debates are icky, but if it needs to happen I'll gladly give you good speaks for it if it's well warranted. I enjoy hearing about the topic, regardless of what cool interpretation or spin on it you want to do. If I learn something new in your round, I'll be a happy person. Don't be problematic.


The Longer Version
General:

• I usually give 4 minutes of prep unless the tournament says otherwise.
• I am fine with flex prep in which the debaters can ask clarification questions in flex prep, but I won't pay attention to questions or answers that occur during here so if you want to get a sort of concession get that in the 3 minutes of CX. 
• Drinking water and eating are ok, but don't do that during CX. It's rude to take a big swig of water in between answering your opponents question.
• Don't mess up the room. Moving desks and stuff is fine, but move stuff back to where you found it at the end of the round. We are guests at the tournaments, not owners.
• Disclosure is pretty cool and I encourage it, whether it's using the wiki or giving them a paper copy of your case before the round. 
• If you're being perceptually dominant, that's cool. If you're making your opponent cry, that's not cool. For women debaters patriarchy has established a norm where women are supposed to be submissive, but you can totes go claws out and be more hyper-aggressive in front of me than in front of other judges. For all debaters: this is supposed to be a safe, fun, intellectually stimulating debate space. Please, don't ruin that. There's a fine line between being aggressive and being a jerk.
• This isn't specific to the debate round but more specific to your time in this very enriching community known as "Forensics (gotta include the interpers, CXers, and PFers, they're people too). In the words of Beena Cook, "Leave the debate space better than when you found it". I've found a new home away from home, friends, and so much knowledge here that it would mean a lot to me (and a lot of people) if you as an individual could make this place more open to more people. A lot of people want to win, but that doesn't mean you have to sacrifice what it means to be a good person in pursuit of that goal. Sorry about the long message, but it's something that's pretty personal/important to me.

Now back to the actual things relating debate.

Theory:
This is an argument that a lot of debaters rely on unnecessarily. I've never been the best theory debater so some of the more nuanced "meta-theory" arguments (ex. A Interpretation: all theoretical interpretations must be positively worded." I'm not familiar with and I'm so not going to understand it. Theory shells should have 3-5 parts, Interpretations, Violations, (Reasons to prefer / [standards and voters] / Implications). Different people do their shells differently, but it needs to have a clear and slowly read interpretation and violation. Paragraph theory isn't something I'm to familiar with, so having it in shell form is pretty cool. I default competing interpretations, but can be changed. I also will vote off an offensive counter-interpretation, but that awkward "If I win terminal defense to their interpretation I win MWAHAHAHA!" would take me way too much time to effectively convince me to adopt that paradigm. I also don't really like too many spikes in the AC (like, more than a minutes worth is too excessive). If you're going to have spikes/theoretical pre-empts in the AC then please keep them lengthy instead of blippy. If I don't flow a blip then then said blip doesn't exist. I won't have much of a problem with presumption arguments, which way permissibility goes (except I usually evaluate that by the wording of the resolution and changing that would be an uphill battle), and if the neg has to defend the converse of the resolution. Affirmative Framework Choice is incredibly tacky, as well as the lesser known Affirmative Ethics choice. Don't make it a thing.

Disadvantages and Counterplans:
They're fun, they're cool. The better the link story the more happy I am as an individual. Uniqueness is pretty important as well as the implication of it. I'm ok with one conditional advocacy on the neg, but like 7 conditional PICs are pretty revolting. People have pretty [not so bueno] link stories, so if you have a good link story I'll really be happy. Cool counterplans are pretty cool, and they can compete through the text or through net benefits.

Kritiks:
The fun stuff! I'm really more familiar with kritiks that are more race based and/or coloniality based. Feminism is pretty gucci too, but two arguments that I really haven't seen in LD that I would really be stoked to see are Queer Theory arguments (outside of that recycled Edelman K) or Quare arguments (fun fact: E. Patrick Johnson teaches at Northwestern University along with Charles Mills). I'm of the belief that there will almost always be good race arguments on both sides of most LD resolutions. Sadly, most race debates occur within a small number of schools and seems to be frowned upon in most debate circles in the US. Oh well, as for non-race based kritiks, I'm not as familiar with the literature, so really explaining your arguments warrants well and thoroughly will get you pretty good speaks. I don't believe in and despise the whole "Make the K really confusing in the 1NC and then it becomes magically clear in the NR!". That won't make me like you and that will make you not like me after you see your speaks. I should be able to follow the basic premises and warrants of the argument, but it can be more clear after the first speech. My reading comprehension sucks (courtesy of years of winging it well) and the random buzzwords being thrown around won't help me understand the argument. The alternatives are usually the weakest part of the K, so making them pretty strong is great, but random things like "traverse the fantasy" and "deconstruct the ideological barriers regarding our epistemic uncertainty surrounding marijuana" doesn't mean much to me.

Paradigm Updated 8/2/2018

Email: marshall@victorybriefs.com

Background

I graduated from Walt Whitman high-school in 2011. I have been coaching debate fairly regularly since then and currently direct curriculum at VBI. My debaters have consistently gotten to late elims at major national tournaments including TOC.

In my non-debate life I am pursuing a PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. My primary area of focus is in ethics and the nature of persons. I work in the analytic philosophical tradition with a focus on the work of Elizabeth Anscombe.

Conflicts

I am conflicted from Harrison HS

5-Min Before Round Paradigm (how i'm different from the average judge)

1. I am more interventionist than most circuit judges. I am willing to do work to not vote on extremely silly arguments. Arguments I have admitted to doing work to avoid voting on include:

- Drop the debater because they read dates after their card names, rather than numbering the cards with the same author name.

- Prefer aff offense on any given layer, extended as saying aff always win weighing.

- 'I meet' I did not read that argument, I extemped it.

- They forgot to say 'I meet' on theory, even though they did indeed extend a plan text.

That said, I am probably more willing than most judges to deviate from mere community convention when it comes to argumentation. For example, I am quite receptive to arguments that the affirmative should get intrinsicness perms and that philosophical frameworks frame theory offense.

2. I am worse at flowing than perhaps any other circuit judge. I'm extremely dyslexic/dysgraphic and my flows tend to be extremely poor even when typing them. However, I can follow the vast majority of rounds, even fairly technical rounds, pretty well in my head. So, you can still be technical however it will be important to spend more time in the 2ar and 2nr doing big picture analysis and comparison than it is for most circuit judges (and for most judges it is more important than students seem to realize).

3. You should win the round because you can beat your opponent's arguments, not because your opponent cannot make arguments. This means if you read super complex Ks against a novice your speaks will suffer a lot. In general, if you structure the debate in a way that you should have known your opponent could not engage you speaks will be capped at 26.

4. I hold positions to a higher standard of clarity and explanation than most judges. I not only need to understand your position when you first read it (and I have no problem admitting when I do not), but the explanation has to be good enough that I think it is reasonable for a reasonably well-informed high-school student to understand the argument. Thus, if you say 'Morality’s directives can only be categorically binding if they are constitutive of agency, as otherwise they are escapable' that is not an adequate explanation of the argument. The only reason I know what that means, is because I know the actual argument that it's a placeholder for. Similarly, if you say 'prefer competing interpretations because it prevents a race to the bottom and reasonability is arbitrary' I will not fill in for you the many missing internal links and extrapolation needed for that to mean something.

5. You can answer preemptive arguments after they are extended and applied. You don't need to answer them in the first speech. E.g. you can answer AC spikes in the 2nr, or NC spikes in the 2ar.

6. Preptime ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer, or when you hit send on the email. Compiling speech docs is on time.

7. Some debaters are unclear when they spread. Others are just going too fast for the complexity of the arguments. If you are unclear I will say 'clear'. If you are going too fast for how complex your argument is I will either say 'slow' or 'AURGHBLUGGGGG' in a distraught tone.

8. [Update midway through apple valley] I have found that I functionally cap negative speaks at 28.5 if you go for more than two distinct levels of offense in the 2nr. I think collapsing is a non-negotiable component of good debating which speaker points are designed to reflect.

Broader Paradigmatic Considerations: Things I believe but will still do my best to decide on the flow

Theory/T Beliefs

A) The Aff should be topical.

B) Many LD resolutions are generics, and many 'plans' don't prove generics true.

C) There is no good argument for the RVI.

D) Theoretical advantages should not replace substantive argumentation. E.g. this FW is super educational should not be able to be a warrant for your ethical theory (note that many Role of the Ballots have this same problem).

E) Framework argument can, and should be, applied to theory debates. If util is false, than deterrence is probably not a good reason to drop the debater on theory.

F) Ad hoc interpretations are bad.

G) Most theory is not drop the debater. The sensible conclusion is normally drop the argument or something else.

H) Something being difficult to answer does not make it unfair. Similarly, proving a theoretical assumption of the aff is false, does not prove the aff did something unfair in making that theoretical claim.

K Beliefs

A)The Aff should be topical.

B) K arguments that talk about what the debater should have done I tend to think about as theory shells. Ks that talk about what the government should have done I tend to think about as a dis ad + a counterplan.

C) Reasons the affirmative ethical theory is bad, is normally not a reason the affirmative loses. Just a reason we should assess the resolution under a different ethical theory. Obviously this is not universal nor incontestable.

D) If your K can result in the action of the aff then you need to say so in the NC. The K solves the aff offense by resulting in the aff is new if made in the 2nr.

Policy Beliefs

A) Condo is fine in most situations as are intrisicness perms (though you cannot fiat into the future, only within the timeframe suggested by the resolution).

B) Uniqueness arguments are probabilistic, not absolute. For example, suppose a republican win in the house and senate will certainly lead to extinction, and a democratic win in either will certainly prevent that extinction. Now imagine two cases. First, the neg wins republican win is likely now (about 60%) and a link that increases the republican chance of winning (moving democrat chances down to 40%). Here the aff has increased the chance of extinction by 20%. However, suppose that the aff reads cards on uniqueness showing a republican win is actually more likely (so the chance of dem's win starts at 40%). Still if the link evidence is the same strength (and so move the dem's chances to 20%) the impact is still the same (affirming increases the chance of extinction by 20%).

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

EMAIL: Add me to the chain:
newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.