Vaziri,+Cameron

Hebron High School University of North Texas

Overview: I don't mind what arguments are made in a round, there is almost no argument that I can see myself just not voting for (and I do not believe that the arguments you run define who you are unless you say they do, so I do not automatically assume that everyone who runs wipeout or torture are actually pro-extinction or pro-torture). I will evaluate the arguments as they are ran, which means that explanation and analysis are more important than number. I have experience with policy, critical, theoretical, and stupid debate arguments and, as such, am willing to hear any of these. To win a round, all I think that can/needs to be done is for the team to explain their arguments, do the impact work, and be strategic (both in how their arguments interact and where the team's focus should be). A team that does this will have told me what to vote on, how to vote, and why.

A few notes:

1. Don't assume I know what your acronym means.

2. I will tell you if you are going too fast.

3. Politics is not a word long enough to justify a horrendous abbreviation like "tix."

4. Understanding your arguments is the key to a good debater. Don't run arguments you don't know and don't assume reading a camp file means you do. Perhaps the only thing I really hate about debate is the way in which authors are misunderstood and misappropriated.

5. Quality matters. Quantity is almost entirely irrelevant to good debate.

6. I don't care about the "community consensus." In fact, I despise it.

Topicality: I am not against hearing a good topicality debate, but I am very against a bad one. Teams debating topicality should not waste as much time as is often done on competing interpretations versus reasonability. Most of the debate ought to focus under the assumption that competing interpretations is the way the debate is analyzed because that is the only way in which evaluation actually is possible. Reasonability does not get you out of a violation but simply shows that your counter-interpretation is one that was justifiably assumed to be correct. This can only be done if you can show that your interpretation does "reasonably" provide for a good debate and thus the debate should be focused on the standards that both interpretations allow for and why each team's is superior to the other's.

If you wish to critique topicality, go ahead. However, explanation as to why this comes before the violation is required, do not assume it is a given. Also, a critique of topicality is a critique, as a result, it is not simply another analytical response that is used to counter a time-suck. If you want to critique topicality, then critique topicality. I will evaluate critiques of topicality as I would a critique, thus look below.

Theory: I evaluate theory similar to topicality. Having an interpretation of what is legitimate and justifying it via standards is better than just a 10 second spew of random claims to biases. I understand the utility of theory arguments as time-sucks, however, 10 seconds of it in the 2AC is probably not enough to leave that option open for later in the debate unless completely dropped. Either way, I will initially evaluate theory arguments as a reason to reject arguments unless told to otherwise and provided a reason.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Oh, and dispositionality and conditionality are not the same. We have two words because they reflect two different concepts. Certainly some theory arguments may be equally applicable, but recognizing that shows an understanding of theory argumentation, whereas calling "dispo" and "conditionality" the same thing reflects an inability to grasp the basics of language.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Disadvantages: <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">I evaluate disadvantages under an offense-defense framework. I don't know if anything else on this needs to be said in terms of debating disadvantages. In terms of winning a debate with a disadvantage you need to do impact analysis.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Counterplans: <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">I do not view any counterplan as inherently illegitimate. I like debates involving very specific PICS and/or very unusual (and maybe at first glance abusive) mechanisms. However, counterplans like the Jesus CP do not fit the above statement. Solving the entirety of the case is not the main objective of the Counterplan, do not confuse this with me advocating a Plan-Plan strategy, simply, I don't think that a solvency deficit means that the counterplan is nullified. Permutations require more response than simply theory. If theory seems like your best/only way out on a permutation then don't make it a small argument (read above).

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Critiques: <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">This is probably what I am most adept to judge because of my non-debate activities. I expect critique debates to focus on elucidation rather than the number of cards or arguments ran. Misappropriating an author will make me angry. Your understanding of the argument is essential to a critical debate. As such, I think critique debates that use less cards and focus more on elucidating the position are superior. I think that most critique literature is rich enough that any critique can find good enough evidence to merit not reading much more, if any, after then initial presentation and still be able to draw from the evidence, offense against the other team's responses. In short, card dumping on a critique is the opposite of efficient, smart, and strategic.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">A few notes:

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">1. I don't know how to situate the plan and/or the critique until someone has told me how to.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">2. Generic link evidence can be specifically applied. (I.e. Foucault never spoke of withdrawing from Iraq, however, that doesn't mean you can't make a specific link to an Affirmative using Foucault.)

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">3. Whatever Leo Strauss may say, secondary sources are not from the devil. However, they may be from idiots.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">4. I agree with Foucault that, "a critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices we accept rest.... Criticism is a matter of flushing out that thought and trying to change it: to show that things are not as self-evident as one believes, to see that what is accepted as self-evident will no longer be accepted as such." However, that is not to say critiques attempting to do something else are illegitimate. This is just how I will understand your argument until told differently.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">5. You do not win a critique because of your sweet jargon.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">6. Realism isn't an answer, it's an alternative interpretation and thus arguments need to be made for why it is a superior interpretation and why the critique fails to fit within this system or overcome it.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">7. If your philosophical system has a named heir, you are probably wrong on all accounts and so is the heir.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Good Luck!