O'Brien,+J.+Patrick

Hey all,

I go by Patrick, and I debated at Cherry Creek High School (CO) from 2004-2009. The most important thing to remember in-round with me is that while I've studied many of the arguments you might be presenting, I haven't debated since 2009, which means (1) I'm not familiar with new types of argumentation that have developed in the last few years (2) I have very little topic-specific knowledge and (3) I'm a bit rusty on speed, so if you go at full pace, there's a good chance I won't be able to understand you. I still want a round where lots of solid arguments make it onto the flow, but if I can't understand you (or if you're going so fast that I can't write down your cites fast enough), then I'll punish you on the flow. I won't extend cards that I can't find on my flow, and I won't extend warrants that I didn't hear or comprehend. Seriously, I need both teams to respect this requirement, or my decision could make absolutely no sense to either side.

Anyway, here's the quick synopsis of my judging prefs-- Tabula Rasa to an absurd degree. I will listen to //any// argument within tournament rules, state statues, US-verified treaties, etc., but I hold a high threshold for any of these arguments. If you're going to do something crazy and original, good luck, but I need to know __why__ your idea is better than traditional debate. I think framework debates are the most interesting/ most important, so I need to see a great F/W debate if you're going to do anything outside of the norm.

Stock Issues (and/including) T- They don't exist unless you tell me they do. As part of my love for F/W debates, I love debates over what T means and how (and if) it should exist in-round/in policy debate in general. If you hold that the stock issues and T should matter, then you need to win this debate in-round for me to evaluate them (generally not a hard argument to win, though).

DAs- Should be pretty straightforward. I assume you want me to evaluate cost-benefit against the status quo, etc.

CPs- Theoretically, the counter-plan is a quirky argument. If the AFF challenges, then I want to see a good theory debate on why your counter-plan(s) is(are) legitimate. I evaluate the CP however the theory debate around it tells me to. I'm open to arguments from "all CPs are illegitimate" to "hypertesting (competing affirmatives) is legitimate".

Ks- When I debated, I loved the critique, so I've done a bit of formal research with professors at my college relating to Heidegger, Foucault, Nietzsche, Butler, Derrida, etc.. This means that I've read quite a few original texts from these authors, but if your K has only been around for about a year, I probably haven't seen it (also, most Ks blatantly abuse what these authors say, so chances are I haven't heard the specific argument that you're putting forth). I love to see Ks, but I also love good AFF counters to Ks (including counter-Ks). Once again, the F/W debate is the most important here. Tell me how to evaluate the round.

AFF-- When I debated, I ran a space AFF __every single year__ (that means the SSA topic, the renewable energy topic, etc. I love space...), so I do have a good amount of knowledge on space topics in general. Just don't drown me in acronyms and expect me to understand. I'm definitely open to critical affs if you tell me how to evaluate it.