Thomas,+Aron


 * Aron Thomas**
 * Lexington 2011**
 * Macalester 2015**

As the rest of my paradigm indicates, I debated policy in High School. At the Apple Valley Tournament I will be judging in the LD pool. I have judged several LD debates before, but am still not entirely familiar with LD norms. Please try and keep the value criterion debate as clear as possible, and be explicit in your framing of values and impacts. Be clear about your advocacy, are you advocating a plan or making an normative statement? Do you have an actor? Also please be clear when transitioning between different categories of arguments. I am much more likely to correctly flow speeches that are well ordered with good signposting. Good framing in the rebuttals will definitely be helpful for me in addressing the most important arguments in the debate.
 * UPDATE FOR APPLE VALLEY TOURNAMENT 2014**


 * General Issues**

-You shouldn't assume I know as much about your arguments as you do, explanation is good.

-Don’t be mean. I am totally okay with aggressive debating and argumentation, but being rude to anyone in the round or insulting other people isn’t cool.

-Don’t clip cards, cross read, etc.

-Clarity is important, I’m not a super fast flower, but speaking loudly and clearly can help me make sure I get all of your arguments on my flow.

The explanations below are just my personal beliefs about debate. If well articulated and well explained, I can be persuaded otherwise. Go for the arguments you are best at.


 * Arguments**

Theory – In most cases, I believe theory to be a reason to reject the argument, as opposed to the team, but I can definitely be persuaded if the arguments are presented well. My interpretation of conditionality is that the status quo is always an option for the negative unless the issue is contested in-round.

Topicality – I don’t know the topic that well. I have only judged a couple tournaments this year, so my topic specific knowledge is pretty limited.

That being said, I think T is a voting issue. I don’t think in round abuse is necessary for the neg to win, only that their interpretation of the topic is better. I think reasonability, if well argued, is a crucial and persuasive argument, and should be used in almost any 2AR. Terminal impact calculus is super important in the last rebuttals

CPs – I am a fan of well-researched counterplans that are strongly related to the affirmative case. Theory can be a persuasive option against artificially competitive or abusive counterplans.

Kritiks – I am a fan. Don’t assume I am familiar with all of the literature, explanation is important in the final rebuttals. I am not afraid to vote on dropped framework or alt solves the case arguments. Affs should have to defend the representations of the 1ac.

Performance/No Plan affs – I believe that the 1ac must be able to answer the question “Does the affirmative defend USFG implementation” with a “yes” or “no” answer in 1ac cross-x. That being said, having an affirmative that does not defend government implementation is not a bad thing. I am willing to vote for most kinds of affirmatives, as long as they have a justifiable framework for their argument and can successfully answer the topicality debate.