Davis,Aaron

Game Player

My judge philosophy is best characterized by the game player paradigm in that i actively demystify and suspend the normality’s of debate and leave the construction of the rules and framework of the round to the debaters themselves rather than some "experts" who dogmatically project their ideas on the debate community. In short, anything with me is fair game. I’m partial to critical arguments and even seemingly utopian and normally absurd policy strategies so long as the persons presenting them have satisfied the functional and theoretical burdens of their opponents or in contrast have worked to construct their own paradigm of the activity.

I debated for Morgan Park high school from 2001-2005. I am one half of the first Urban Debate League team to ever qualify and compete at the TOC. My strategies in high school tended to be very critical both on the aff and the neg. My partner and i frequented arguments such as Agamben, Foucault, and Capitalism. I have since coached 2 other UDL teams to the TOC (2007 and 2008) while working at Payton high school. Currently I coach for North side College prep (UDL) and judge occasionally for GBS. This year I have judged 30 rounds on the topic.


 * My one caveat is that theoretical objections ( other than topicality) must have relevance. I am often unimpressed when i have to vote on unsubstantiated theory arguments. This is not to discourage people from running theory arguments ( as i do vote on them) but i encourage people to be clear on what the framework of the theory argument is and how it operates in the context of the argument under which you are presenting it.

p.s. speed is fine with me so long as you are clear. I’m happy to answer any other specific questions in round or at any time during the tournament. Aaron