Heydari,+Aubtin

aubtinh@gmail.com

Debated 4 years at Harrisonburg High School, current debater for University of Southern California

__**General**__

Run anything you want in front of me. Debate is about argumentative experimentation, in my opinion, so I tend to value creative, personal, and unique arguments over tired and true arguments. This doesn't mean I'll give you brownie points for running something wacky if the other team reads something traditional, but it does mean that if you have an argument you've been working on for a while, regardless where it falls in the debate spectrum, but you're afraid it might be alienating or convoluted, go ahead and give it a try. I respect gutsy/risky moves and would rather see an interesting but messy debate over a clean yet bland one.

Tabula Rasa probably isn't a real thing, but I do try my hardest to be as 'objective' as possible. My belief is that the purpose of the debate is for you to present your worldview and express your political agency, however you may choose to define those things. I want to see how you (and/or your partner) view and experience the world and what change (or lack thereof) you want to see in it. I do not default to any particular thing in the round unless you tell me to; by this, I mean that I don't //necessarily// believe the topic is the starting point for the debate, that extinction is undesirable, that rationality is good, that civilization is necessary, etc.. Of course, this doesn't mean you have to prove/disprove any of these if they aren't contested, but rather that I would rather you stick to what you believe or what you're interested in exploring intellectually, whether that's the glory of US Heg or the violence of heteronormativity, than conforming to a dominant opinion for the sake of accessibility.

Broadest explanation of my opinions possible: in regards to inter-debate content (affs, Ks, DAs, case turns), anything goes and I prefer tech/strategy/experimentation over truth. With meta-debate arguments (theory, FW, T), I prefer reasonability over tech.

__**K**__

I chose to put this up top because kritiks are my particular area of expertise. I pretty much only read kritikal literature on both sides. The Ks I've run are Deleuze, Bataille, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Mann, Queer Theory, Ableism, Postcolonialism, Anthro, Deep Eco, Taoism, and Buddhism. Other kritiks I'm very familiar with are Lacan, most race/identity scholarship (CRT, Afropessimism, Lat Crit, etc.), Indigenous/Red scholarship, Marx, Feminism, Agamben/Foucault, Schmidt, Object Oriented Ontology, etc. I've done performance oriented debate, and I've done some seriously weird shit in round (Dada affs, reading porn, reading children's books, death good, etc), so if that doesn't make it clear, I'm fine with almost anything you can run. I study film and writing, and I consider myself a surrealist or at most a fan of the avant-garde, which means I am able to be persuaded by arguments such as nonsense being good, destroying debate being desirable, etc.

HOWEVER, don't think because I lean heavily on the K that means you should run a K. I don't like watching generic Ks, Ks you clearly didn't write the blocks to, Ks you clearly don't understand or haven't read the lit for, or Ks for the sake of confusing the other opponent (except in the case of shit like Dada). You should assume I know nothing about the critique when giving your rebuttals, but be aware that I probably do know something if its one of the aforementioned Ks and that I can smell BS/sophistry and will be willing to dock speaks. I encourage you to run creative kritiks and take risks, but don't run a K you haven't read because its shiny and trendy.

Because I try to intervene as little as realistically possible, I don't think knowing my personal philosophy would or should influence your strategy, but for the sake of disclosure, the arguments I resonate most with are those of a pessimistic, misanthropic, 'nihilistic', and speculative outlook. I believe arguments cannot be completely divorced from the social location of the speaker, so while I'm willing to let that be up for debate in the round, __I'm side eyeing you white prep school kids running Wilderson because its trendy__. Additionally, I think ressentiment arguments are responsive and acceptable against identity politics when done tactfully.

If it wasn't clear, all of this applies to kritikal affs as well. Make it as topic specific or atopical as you want as long as you can justify your method/model of debate.

__**T/Framework**__

I don't have that many major opinions of T but I do feel like I have a high threshold i/r/t voting on it. Don't read blocks past each other, engage each others interpretations and impact it out. I would vote on kritiks of T if they are coherent and integrated parts of the 1AC.

Regarding framework ; I may on a subconscious level be biased towards the side of the K, but I will easily vote for framework just the same. I would much rather vote on a framework that is inclusive than exclusive, which means I'm going to be a hard sell if your framework argument is pretty much "Ks are bad." If a wild nontopical aff appears and all you have prepared is framework, it's cool to run it one off, but in instances where your opponent is running fairly mainstream Ks, I highly suggest running framework as only part of your strategy. Not engaging with the K at all, particularly on the neg, is lazy.

__**Policy Stuff**__

Do whatever you want.

__**Theory**__

I'll vote on hypothetically any theory argument*. Spreading theory blocks probably won't do it for me, I'd rather you take it slow and provide 3 or 4 meaningful standards than spread through 7. Embedded theory args are smart, but I won't vote on them if they aren't elaborated. Engage, create clash, etc.


 * ASPEC is not on this list and neither is Utopian Fiat


 * __Other Stuff__**

Full disclosure: I'm a slightly messy flow-er, so if lightning fast out teching and uber specific LbL is your strategy, it might be in your interest to read my facial expressions and notice if I seem lost.

I don't flow cross x, but I will pay attention and will take a note of anything I believe to be crucial to the debate. (also cross x is open, but its 2015 and I shouldn't have to be saying this)

I see debate as a speech activity rather than a calculated game of chess. By this, I mean I am more interested/influenced in the meta-debate than uber specifics, so even if the other team dropped standard 3 in your 2nd theory argument, I may still be more convinced by a well delivered, persuasive, and thoughtful 2nd rebuttal than a de facto voting axiom. Strategy and squirrely debate tactics are welcome, but ultimately you are convincing me to vote for you, so don't forget to actually convince me.

The judicial power structure of debate means that **I** possess absolute control of the aux and reserve the right to supersede your pre-/post-round music choice.

Prep time stops when your saving to the flash drive, so please let me know when that's happening and make sure to not steal any prep. I personally don't want to enforce a prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer policy, so please don't give me a reason to.

Please be respectful in round, I get it if you get heated in a round and I think passion and some aggression can be good, but please don't be rude to me, your partner, or the other team. I would much rather see playfulness rather than solemnity, teasing rather than insulting, and good sports(hu)manship rather than awkward post-round tension.

I'll vote on word PICs and ableist/patriarchal/gender essentialism language Ks, but I don't like to view the ballot as a form of punishment and I'm a pretty hard sell on dirty words. With that said, I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, transphobia, or any language directly intent on marginalizing/discriminating.

Pop culture, literary, filmic, and intradebate references are encouraged and rewarded in speaks.