White-Rasmusson,+Tait

Tait White-Rasmusson

Debated 4 years of HS (Winfield, Kansas), 2 in College (Los Angeles City College, CSUFullerton) General Thoughts (whatever "thinking" is):

I am open to anything. I am also incredibly judgmental. I would rather hear a unique, new argument with perhaps less precise execution than the tightest strategy executed in the most boring way possible. That being said, what I would rather hear and what will win a substantive debate may not be the same. Use your own discretion here; that’s why you are the debater, right? Don’t be mean and overbearing; don’t be too timid. “Policy arguments” (whatever that means)

Implementation and the allowed viability of current affairs are important if you're going this route. The more precise the better. I'd like to feel how far the effects of my ballot travel, gloriously stamping the world with my verdict; as a god would upon mortal puppets. “Critical Arguments” (whatever that means)

These are the arguments with which I have the most familiarity. Please don't buzzword me to death here.

I am inclined to believe that permutations to “critical arguments” make little to no sense unless the aff is already winning substantive arguments on the link and impact level. Impact comparison and/or link turns would be time much better spent and certainly necessary if you want me to vote for these so-called "permutations". Topicality/Theory (whatever “genocide” sounds like):

If you know what you’re talking about or have a crafty violation, I’m certainly willing to vote on topicality. That being said, I have a higher threshold on topicality than most. However, your "fairness" "education" "ground" abuses aren't worth my time. Tell me the direct violation and I'll decide how you were afflicted in the round (by watching the round). If you prove no affiliation with the resolution, or a direct connection through the resolution, I will vote on topicality first and then weigh the impacts. If the abuse warrants my ballot, then you will win my ballot. Aff should at least discuss its pertinence to the resolution and/or debate or have a cogent defense of the presentation of your argument or a criticism of the necessity of such discussions. If someone tells me that these affs don't matter, I will listen to their arguments and remain open to persuasion on the issue. Not unexpectedly, I find that the smart cheaters are often very far ahead on these debates. Take that for what it is. “My” background (whoever “I” am)

My recreational readings are old and delightful, or super current and tedious. I am often made to feel as if this is something for which I should be apologetic. That sucks. I watch enough ridiculous television shows and movies to enjoy well-placed pop culture references. I don’t necessarily think talking about helping people, saving lives, fixing oppression, etc. is awesome, but if you can measure some practicality from your actions I’ll (re)consider it. Personally, I’m bankrupt of most things that make people like other people. If you can make me laugh during a debate, that will bode well for you. But trying too hard is like caring too much about not being a fascist: it only makes you a fascist – meaning I won’t laugh and will instead frown and perchance even think mean thoughts about you. Parts of this paradigm were stolen from an old friend. I approve of them, but he doesn't know.