Email:
 traviswaynecochran@gmail.com
 Affiliations - Past & Present:
 Currently coaching for CSU Fullerton.
 Previously coached for Hebron, Fullerton Union, Southwestern College, Capitol Debate, Juan Diego, SDSU, The Meadows School, and some other mercenary stops along the way.
 Previously debated at UNLV and Green Valley High School.
 IMPORTANT UPDATE - 9/4/2020
 I'm not sure I can be any clearer about this, but PLEASE go slower in front of me. Y'all don't have studio mics. I don't have studio speakers/headphones. I have auditory processing issues. This is not the same as being in the same room as each other. If you are super quick, then you should be going at about 80% of your top speed.
 Does this mean you might have to read less in the 1NC? YES
 Does this mean that 2As might have to make less/better answers? YES
 Does this mean you need to slow down on prewritten extensions and analytics? YES
 I want to fully grasp EVERYTHING in the debate and not just get the gist of things.
 If you do not want to adapt to this, then you have prefs and strikes. I suggest you use them accordingly ...
 2020 Updates:
 1. Didn't work at a camp, so I'm still getting up to speed on the topics.
 2. I don't want to hear any Death Good arguments. It's a very easy way to make me very unhappy. You *might* get the ballot, but you will not like your speaks.
 3. I'm not a big fan of the procedural fairness variety of framework. It's an uphill battle with me.
 4. Slowing down a tick in front of me is always a good strategy. First, I believe that debate is a communication activity and I enjoy debates where people use the skills of persuasion to try and get my ballot. Second, I can't keep up with theory shells or blippy card wars - was never the fastest of flows and this still holds true. I'll try my hardest, but it was always possible to outspread me as a debater and it's still true as a judge. I value clarity, especially in online debate. Slowdown on theory and analytics.
 5. Speech docs: I want to be included on any email chains. I will use my flow to determine the decision, which can be different from speech docs, especially if you aren't clear and give me enough pen time.
 6. All of you are smarter than me, so please be easy on me. I'll work hard to be a good judge, but I won't promise I will get everything that is happening in the round.
 7. I'm an only-parent of two young children in the middle of a pandemic. Always a chance that something happens where I have to take a few minutes of judge prep. I'll work hard to minimize these instances, but cannot promise they will not happen.
 If you still think it's good to have me in the back of the room after you know this, then continue reading and see if you still feel that way when you're done.
 Meat/Mock Meat & Potatoes:
 Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. I tend to default to reasonability. Slow down a tick on T or you will make me sad. I cannot keep up with you reading your 2NC/1NR blocks at full speed.
 Counterplans: The more specific the better, but I’m game for whatever. Consult CPs are fine. Delay is fine. I do not like counterplans with a lot of planks that the negative can jettison at will. Such counterplans will leave me sympathetic to affirmative theory arguments.
 Counterplan Theory: Sketchy counterplans should lose to theory. However, theory violations should be well developed and it is up to the affirmative to prove why I should reject the team and not the argument. It's no secret that I am not the quickest flow, so slow down for me on theory debates.
 Theory: I think negatives are getting away with too much. People can run multiple contradictory counterplans/advocacies all they want in front of me and I will not automatically vote them down for it. However; I am sympathetic to well articulated theory arguments as to why it is cheating, as well as sympathetic to affirmatives that use negative shenanigans to justify affirmative shenanigans. Play dirty pool at your own risk in front of me…aff or neg. I do not like cheap shot theory. I try to not vote for cheap shot theory arguments, even if they are dropped. However, I will use cheap shot theory arguments as a way out of difficult rounds in which both teams were making my job painful. I try not to let cheap shots determine the outcome of rounds that are well debated on both sides. I reward good smart debate. No New AFFs is not a good arg in front of me. Pref Sheet Disclosure is not a good arg in front of me.
 Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good uniqueness cards to 10 bad uniqueness cards. I prefer 1 or 2 good warrants to 10 bad uniqueness cards.
 Criticisms: The more specific the better. You probably know more about your specific criticism than I do. However, debate is not about who knows the most about a topic; it is about how much you can teach me within the time limits of the round. If I cannot explain your position back to you at the end of the debate, then I cannot vote for it.
 Framework: Sure. You can go that route, but please slow down. I prefer substance to theory. I don't find the T stuff or procedural fairness stuff that persuasive. Institutions good and training is a much better route with me in the back.  
 Performance/Nontraditional/Critical AFFs: I’m cool with it. I don't find your argument persuasive that these AFFs shouldn't get perms. If I can't explain your AFF back to you then it will be really hard for me to vote for you. I have no problem voting NEG on presumption if I don't know what you do or can be persuaded that you do nothing.
 Case: I wish my people debated it more. I honestly think that a well developed case attack (offense and a heck of a lot of good defense) with a disad or a critique are much more effective than multiple disads/critiques/counterplans. Case debate is good and underrated.
 I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.
 My Idiosyncrasies: 
 One thing that everyone should know is that I naturally give a lot of nonverbal (sometimes verbal) feedback, even in the middle of rounds. If I think your argument is really smart then you will probably see me smiling and nodding. If I think your argument is not smart or just wrong, my face will look contorted and I will be shaking it in a different direction. If this happens…do not freak out. Use it to your advantage that you know which arguments I like and do not like.
 I will also intervene in cross x if I think that a team is being particularly evasive on a point that needs to be clarified to conduct a good clean debate. I will also intervene in cross x if I think the environment is becoming hostile.
 Finally, I am unabashedly human. I am open to the whims of fatigue, hunger, emotions and an overwhelming desire to do what I think is right, no matter how inconsistent and possibly misguided at the time. This is just a fair warning to any of you that will be inevitably upset if my decision seems to vary from this judging philosophy. I'm not a robot and sometimes my opinions about my role and this activity changes while judging a round. This is a fact. Deal with it :)
 Debate is fun…at least it should be. Don’t be a jerk.