Burgeson,+Aidan

My philosophy/paradigm is pretty simple. __**Use Common Sense**__ That is the basic principle I will work on. I need to understand your argument if you expect me to give it any weight. Try to create a realistic, down-to-earth picture of the scenario you're trying to portray. I don't care what professor from what institution wrote it, if you can't convince me that it make's sense, I won't vote on it. I will take a good analytic argument over some carbon copy evidence any day. Just because it got published by Harvard does not make it right (avoid source wars unless absolutely necessary). You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. That being said, cold hard evidence can be the key to gaining an edge on any side of an impact __//if used correctly//__. The second part of that is impacts. I need to know why it matters. I need to see a tangible story of what the argument means, and what will/could result if such an event were/were not to take place. Even though i don't see many anymore I like a good impact calculation. Even if you don't want to block it out at the end or wherever, those are still the principles that you need. a) __Probability/Link__ - The likelihood of the impact happening in the real world. b) __Time Frame__ - How soon would the impact occur. c) __Magnitude__ - How much of an effect will it have. This also includes the type of effect. Psychological, Economical, Political, Nuclear War (the fan favorite) ect.

I am also a flow judge, I judge by what I have on my flow at the end of the debate. So it is very important to me that you follow your arguments through, not just the evidence, but the real core of the argument and why it matters. So don't just say "flow this across" or "cross apply this". I need to know exactly what it is and why it matters. This touches on speed, I did policy so I can translate auctioneer, but it goes back to what I said earlier about understanding. If I don't understand it, I won't flow it, you won't get it. Slow down on your tags if nothing else. A few specific points I'll touch on a) __Topicality__ - I hate topicality with a burning passion of a thousand fiery suns. As far as I'm concerned, if it's physically possible and they can link it any way to the resolution, it's topical. The biggest problem comes when the Aff doesn't answer topicality. I hate having to vote Neg simply because the Aff dropped topicality but I've had to do it. Even if you have to half-ass something, do it. Anything I don't care. This is perfect place for a short, sweet analytic. b) __Morality/Ethics__ - This isn't a huge issue in CX but it does come up. I use this term in a very broad sense as I have seen it take form in a lot of different arguments. If you are going to claim some ethic or moral responsibility to do something, or justification/weight based on some moral or ethical (especially religious) principal, I'm probably not gonna buy it. There are a billion different ways to define "right and wrong". It's all a matter of perspective. If you wan't to claim any impacts based on such you need to do it very carefully and it needs to be a real-world reason and scenario. "The bible says so" or other arguments of the like do not count.

At the end of the day, it is the job of the debaters to convince me the judge why you should win. I won't connect the dots or finish arguments for you. It's not even necessarily about being right, it's about convincing me that your right.