Aufderheide,+Trevor

=**Background:**=
 * Updated: 1/16/12 - specifically, #4**

Debated at Edina High School ('06-'10) Debating at the University of Iowa ('10-)
 * Trevor Aufderheide **

=**General Philosophy:**=

While I strive to be as open-minded as possible, here are a few important things to know about me since they affect how I view a debate:

__**1. I prefer technical and fast debate**__. Line-by-line debate is pretty sweet. I would like to think that my flow is decent, but be clear about where you're going. Be clear in general, too. You will hear me if I can't understand you.

__**2. I reward innovation**__. Whether it's an in-round strategic decision or a well-researched and nuanced argument, out-of-the-box thinking will be duly noted by me when it comes to your speaker points. Be creative. FYI, being creative does not mean running the veto-cheato CP, so be reasonable as well.

__**3. I value spin over evidence quality**__. When evaluating parts of the flow in the context of the cards that support them, I will often give more weight to the arguments/extrapolations made by the debaters instead of purely basing my decision on the quality of evidence. Again, this is not an excuse to read really bad cards and expect to win. I just feel a lot more comfortable leaving most of the interpretation of evidence to the debaters instead of myself.

__**4. Views on debater conduct:**__ Tag team c-x, speaking while sitting down, etc., those practices are all good. Now onto more serious things. I hate prep thieves - don't let me catch you or I will call you out on your shenanigans. Ethics issues like card clipping and evidence fabrication will get you a swift insta-loss and a 20 or lower. MOST IMPORTANTLY, I believe in creating an atmosphere open and welcoming to people of every race, gender, class, and sexual orientation. Any action that intentionally disrupts or violates this will not be tolerated. This includes both physical and verbal abuse. I recognize there are some phrases or forms of oppressive language that many do not recognize the implication of (i.e. "you guys," "gypped," etc.). In those cases, I will not punish or reprimand you, but don't be alarmed if I correct you at some point during the debate. I merely intend to educate.

__**5. Constructives are constructives, rebuttals are rebuttals**__. The standard is a little different for the 1NR, but I generally think that the 1AR-onward should be void of unabashedly new arguments. I don't think the 1AR should get away with reading 8 new cards on a position that the 2AC royally screwed up. New cards on an argument that the 2AC made can be easily justified but anything else probably sandbags the 2NR. I will also do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments. On a quick aside, impact calculus should probably be developed earlier than the last two rebuttals.

__**6. This is only my third year judging**__. I don't have a lot of background knowledge about the topic, but I will do my best to evaluate the debate objectively. Run what you like, do what you enjoy. If you have any questions, ask them.

__**7. My favorite judges in high school**__ included Brian Peterson, Jon Voss, and Robbie Quinn. If you find them or judges with similar philosophies favorable, then I might be a good judge for you. Also, my views on debate were shaped by my high school coach Rohan Sadagopal, so I agree with him on almost every issue except his misconception that impact turning is always awesome.

=** Quick thoughts on some specific arguments: **=


 * Theory** - is usually a reason to reject the argument (Conditionality/Dispositionality are obviously different). I evaluate theory (and T) through an offense/defense paradigm. I don't understand how "reasonability" exists as a separate paradigm. It appears logical to me that if you're interpretation is reasonable, then it's also preferable. Also, make sure your theory arguments actually constitute an argument. "The CP is conditional - that's a voter" and anything similar will not get you very far.


 * Disads** - I do believe in 0% risk, but only in the case of a blatantly dropped argument or a matter of "truth" (i.e. the plan doesn't spend any money). Does uniqueness control the link or does the link control uniqueness? I don't know. I don't get the relevance of this question. Winning both the uniqueness and link debate seems crucial to winning your disad.


 * Counterplans** - should probably have a solvency advocate, are a better sell if both functionally and textually competitive, but are awesome in general. I think that the level of how abusive your counterplan is should be equal to or less than the level of affirmative shiftiness. Therefore, arguments like Word PICs are a much easier sell against kritikal affirmatives, etc. Additionally, if you're going to read a counterplan of questionable theoretical legitimacy (i.e. actor or agent CP), please have a better defense than "neg flex." Neg flex is stupid - stop whining - neg teams have enough flex.


 * Kritiks** - are generally fine. Just keep in mind that I probably don't have the same level of background knowledge that you do. I find most kritik tricks pretty suspect (i.e. floating piks, fiat is illusory, etc.) In most cases, any kind of affirmative response will beat or cast doubt upon those arguments for me. Affirmative FW arguments that say I shouldn't allow kritiks at all will usually lose. Affirmative FW arguments that say I should be able to weigh the aff impacts will usually win.


 * Project/Non-traditional affirmatives**- I believe affs should have some form of plan text/advocacy statement that's relevant to the resolution. If not, I am pretty sympathetic to most negative framework arguments. Also, I agree with Brent Culpepper when he says, "I will attempt to remain an objective evaluator. The only time this goes away is if you ask me to become a part of debate or ask my ballot to send a message. If you do this then I will not endorse something I do not politically believe in."

=Ranked List of Ideal 2NRs:=

1. DA/Case 2. DA/CP/Case 3. K/Case 4. T 5. Cheating CP (Consult, Conditions, Normal Means PICs, etc.) and most CP's with internal net benefits. 6. Stupid versions of any of the above arguments. This includes ASPEC, Occularcentrism, the "should" PIC, etc.

=Paperless Debate:=

I debate paperless in college so I am used to the pitfalls and frustrations involved with paperless debate. Just be as quick as you can about jumping speeches.

=** Speaker Point Scale (with actor/actress equivalents): **=

25.5 or lower - you did something extremely offensive that pissed me off (Mel Gibson) 26 - you are most definitely in the wrong division (Paris Hilton) 26.5 - you are bad and you need a lot of work (Nicolas Cage) 27 - you are slightly below average (Keanu Reeves) 27.5 - you are ok (Demi Moore) 28 - I probably enjoyed judging your round (Will Smith) 28.5 - I think you should get a speaker award (Julia Roberts) 29 - I think you should get a really good speaker award (Charlize Theron) 29.5 - I hope the top speaker award you should win is pretty cool (Robert De Niro) 30 - Voice of God - there is no human award worthy of your acceptance (Meryl Streep)