Parkinson,+Aric

Name: Aric Parkinson Affiliated with: Hillcrest High School, Midvale Utah


 * Short version:** Argue what you want how you want to argue it, give me clear voters at the end, and I'll vote on what you want. If I see a tie, I'll turn to standards debate by default because I like the philosophy and moral elements of LD. Don't be a mudslinger with abuse claims.

__Personal Experience__ - I debated for four years in high school, though I didn't get too far into the competitive scene. That said, I am (as local debaters would call it) a progressive judge - I don't mind your speed, I don't care about theory, discourse, Ks, etc. etc. As far as I'm concerned, any argument is fair game so long as you provide solid warrant and explain the impacts.
 * Longer version:**

As far as speed is concerned, I don't care about it, but there have been several debaters that just get beyond me. I'll be glad to call clear to make you aware I'm not keeping up, but my perspective is really that the debaters who train to absurd speeds are getting the edge of putting more arguments on the flow in exchange for a risk that people won't be able to keep up with them. I will flow what I keep up with and I will put things on my flow as //**I**// hear it.

__Standards__ - I like LD because of its philosophical discussions. I got attracted to the event because the debates weren't as much about guessing what your opponent's strange plans were, or whether they were supposedly solving, but rather whether the resolution is //true//. I'm more keen on debates that come down to the aff and neg clashing on the moral implications of either side than whether a supposed advocation imposed by the negative on the aff is a valid position.

What does this mean for you? If you want to make me happy, discuss standards. If the round comes down to a draw on voters, I'll default to the standards debate. When you claim that you can accept your opponent's standards, you'd better have a real position and a real method to maintain it - and if you don't present impact calculus on your turn of your opponent's standards, you'll be losing points on my flow.

__Theory__ - Argue it all you want, but I do have very strong opinions on abuse calls. My perspective is that anyone crying abuse is making a claim about their opponent's character. Therefore, if you call your opponent abusive, but lose that argument, I feel you pretty much deserve to lose the debate. Calling abuse is not some pocketed argument you can pull out to hit your opponent with rather than running a more traditional case.

Moreover, I won't vote on abuse alone. If your only winning impact that your opponent has made the debate unfair for you, I won't pick you up no matter whether you've proven yourself right or not. If you don't at least try to put arguments on the flow - despite the abuse you claim your opponent is expressing - I've got no impacts to vote you up on. Sorry, that's just how it is.

However, don't let this section sound oppressive - I just mean that I don't like people calling their opponent a cheater when that is clearly not the case. I will listen to all theory arguments you put on the flow, and will judge the appropriately.

__Cards__ - I'm not going to vote you on card extensions - extend your //arguments// please. I'm not going to flow what So-and-so in 2005 said, and I'm only going to care about what it says if the card specifically comes into question. Extensions on arguments is what matters, and that's what I'm going to judge on. If a specific card in a link proves your opponent is tied to your DA despite the arguments he placed on the link were, then feel free to bring up the card says that. But if you extend the card, you're not getting flow advantage - extend the Link, then continue to show how this means your opponent is causing the impacts later on.

__Everything Else__ - Those things said, feel free to structure your case how you want and debate the ideas you want to debate. I'm very open minded as far as all this is concerned. The only things I really care about are above, and (with the exception of my preference on standards debate), I'm not going to judge you based on my own personal biases or preferences. You're the debaters, convince me why your side is right - that's what your job is, anyway.