Brown,+Aaron

I debated 3 years at Baltimore City College High School. The first year of my high school career I did straight policy. The last two years I delved into the K on both sides. While debating my last two years I read mostly race theory and cards about antiblackness.
 * History**

I mostly debated the k and I love kritiks. I think that a kritikcal perspective is important for opening the actimorvity to more subservant experiences. It is good for the sport and personally believe it to be good for the community.

Despite my love for Kritiks and Race arguments, I will admit that I am less biased than most. When I watch and Judge debate, I listen to the actual arguments being made. I will vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I whole heartedly believe that debate should be about even competition that is based on what is said in round and how it effects the outside world, not the other way around.
 * Paradigm**

For K teams, explain arguments and links. If I do not understand why things are the way they are or even how the Alternative solves for things. then I will have more trouble voting you up. Do yourself a favor and impact and explain each claim you make and pretend that I don't know what you are talking about.
 * For K teams**

If you are a policy team and you read my Judge philosophy, DO NOT BREAK OUT YOUR K-ISH ADVANTAGES FOR YOU SUPER POLICY AFF. Its is insulting and I will have a hard time believing it. I enjoy policy affs that have a k twist but I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT REDUCING GW HELPS SOLVE RACISM. Also, if your an all white team that reads a race k against poc I will likely not vote on it unless it has a legit (and I mean hardcore legit) link. That being said in any situation, I will try my best to be open minded.

Now, speaking of things that I hate, DO NOT RUN T. I do not believe that you were forced to run t, nor care. T makes for shallow debates and I hate it. If T is answered at least relatively ok its a no go for me. I will vote on it if I have to. I am a fair judge. (and then some). My low threshold for t is only matched by the low speaker points I am likely to give you for running it and making the debate space a useless arena. (Yes, T and T fw are the same and no I don't want to hear you tell me otherwise.) That being said, I would be interested in hearing a critical spin on a Framework argument that talks about why the State focus may be good politically for (whater K is being talked about.) I am good on theory, so if you run I'm cool

Conceded arguments for me mean that you agree with them and I should take it as true. That being said, I still as a Judge opposed to most, vote on rounds wholistically instead of being being flowcentric. The easiest way to win my ballot is by looking specifically at the larger picture and explaining why you should that way. If you have to eventually you can go to conceded arguments on the flow, but they are not my first priority. They are my second.
 * Voting**

I am okay with spreading Be clear and slower on tags. I want to hear what you have to say and I cant vote for something I cant hear.
 * SPREADING**