Elisia Cohen

University of Southern California

Years Coaching/Judging: 3

Things you should know about me: 1) If I voted on Topicality or a theory argument this year, I don’t remember. Its not that I am unwilling to vote on topicality, rather, I have heard few theory/T debates in the 2nr. 2) I am not a big fan of the product PIC, but I think that there are interesting ways that PICs may be made competitive due to the nature of the topic/aff. plans. Ultimately, for me, it is CP competitiveness that counts. 3) Reciprocity rules in theory debate game (i.e. why should your interpretation of the game be the way it should be played, how is it fair/reciprocal). 4) I have not voted negative on many kritiks this year. A) I have not heard many stories that were compelling narratives of why the aff linked (I think that negatives are having a difficult time illustrating the link on this years "remove sanctions" topic as compared to the "increase security assistance" topic), and why there is a discursive impact (answer the what am I voting for, anyway?). B) I have not heard many kritiks extended in the 2nr. 5) I prefer not to call for cards that I cannot understand in the debate. 6) Tell me why something is a voting issue. Arguments must have both evidence and a warrant to support the claim. If your arguments don't meet that simple standard, I will feel free to disregard them.

A word to the well-researched: I am most familiar with Cuba, Iraq, Iran and Syria debates. Less so with the changing situation with N. Korea. I am easily confused with acronyms.

I have heard few affirmatives press the internal link on Clinton. Although I am willing to assign low to no risk… Oddly, I have not been compelled to do so yet this year.

I prefer not to read newspapers during the CX (which, by the way, is a good time to read the sweet/crappy evidence to me and get a reaction).

In terms of style: you should treat other debaters with respect. At the same time, I don’t mind debates that get a little feisty.

Speaker points: 1) I give high points for debaters who master the internal summary in rebuttals, read evidence clearly, and have excellent line by line skills. 2) I will interrupt you ONCE when I am on a panel to prompt you to be clearer. 3) I will crush your speaker points if you engage in oppressive behavior without apology (i.e. if you choose to use gendered pronouns you should choose not to continually marginalize women in the activity by referring to us as "he").