Aurioles,+Adam

University of Chicago 2020 araurioles2016@gmail.com

I won't auto-vote on anything, I don't check out for arguments. Policy Args: I enjoy policy arguments much more than I enjoy critical arguments, I guess the easiest way to put this is I wish critical teams were more practical in their alternatives. I really enjoy CP/DA debates and a good in depth case debate can tear apart an aff. T: It all comes down to competing interps and defining clear limits for what is and what is not topical. I think that is especially true for surveillance because all of the different kinds of it. The more you are able to do this the less likely I will vote on reasonability. I don't think you need to win much on T except for the fact that they are untopical, I don't think questions of abuse (potential and in round), education and fairness matter as much because affs should be topical. If you arent you should lose. K's: There is a pretty good chance that unless your argument is Cap, I don't know the nuances of your K. Critical literature is not my go to for leisure reading so I will not know what your lit base says. Explain it very well. I am not as willing to vote on the "if we win FW that means we dont have to win the alt". Granted if the other team drops this you will likely win but that is because tech>truth and not because I want to vote for you. I think Ks often times either identify non problems, are non-uq, don't disprove the aff, the alt doesn't solve, and don't give a real reason the plan is bad. ---If you are aff and the neg reads cap I will appreciate good cards about why cap is good from economists and not your often times ridiculous impact turns like cap key to space. While I think these arguments are generally true, the neg is far more prepared for them but good cards that uphold the capitalist system in a truth/economics sense are far better and are often more qualified than their sociology professors/critical authors/non-economists. There is a reason we have an entire field that studies this and I will greatly reward (speaker points) affs that can prove cap is good on an empirical basis. K Affs: Not a fan, I think for the most part FW is the best strategy or if you are cut from the cloth of American Hegemony the Heg Good K is always an option, but in all seriousness do what you feel gives you the best leverage against the aff and I will evaluate the debate from there. I think that affs should probably try to win some substantial impact rather than just going for something theoretical. Theory: I don't really want to listen to these debates since I think they are often shallow and almost never leave the realm of pre-written blocks. I don't have any preferences on theory and I usually won't think something is abusive but that is up for debate. I probably don't want to read your evidence after the round and probably only will if there is a direct dispute over what a piece of evidence actually says. Flashing isnt prep but it is pretty obvious if you are just trying to delete analytics and not use prep. Great Debate Minds: Brian Rubaie, Brett Bricker, Jordan Foley, Kurt Fifelski, Adrienne Brovero, Charlie Marshall General Tips:
 * 1) You can call me Adam, I am not Judge
 * 2) I would like to think I am intelligent person so not everything has to be simplified but use your discretion when it comes to very topic specific content since I have 0 rounds on the topic.
 * 3) It is your job to communicate and if I fail to get an argument it is more likely on you than on me.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Tech>Truth most of the time but it can be a case by case basis.
 * 5) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I default to I am a policymaker framework-but as soon as one team introduces a different framework (even implicitly in the 1AC like a K aff), it is the responsibility of the other team to tell me why this shouldn't be true.
 * 6) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I won't vote for you having more pathos than the other team, Clash and comparison>Pathos
 * 7) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Do not say I have an ethical or some kind of obligation. I don't have one, but if the other side doesn't respond to this, I am not voting on my obligation but instead because of a lack of the oppositions ability to answer.
 * 8) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I do not vote on "but they dropped it/it was conceded", your explanation of the impact of that concession matter far more
 * 9) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I usually give somewhere around a 28.3. Around a 28.7 means you were great and anything over a 29 is fantastic.