Thomas,+Aaron

Aaron Thomas KCKCC I am currently a college debater Have been debating for 6 years

Generally: First off have fun!!! And be nice! I am not sure I am comfortable with labels we place on judges. I’m not really Tabula Rasa; I do have opinions that impact my decision in subtle and explicit ways. The main thing you should know about me is execution of the argument are most important as the quality of the argument. A really good disad with good cards this is poorly explained and poorly extended is not very compelling to me. Also there are certain words that are value laden for me. These include and not limited to turn, moral imperative, deontology, and decision rule. These phrases should sound off alarm bells when you hear them most of the time if you drop these argument you are going to lose. Doesn’t mean you should stand up and say “ turn- the disad is stupid which is a deontological moral imperative” and expect to win.

As to other preferences,

Counter plans/Disads: are good, especially when used in strategic combinations. I tend to evaluate the link/Internal link before the question of uniqueness as I am unlikely to decide that a uniqueness debate is clearly won by either side.

Topicality/Spec. - Topicality is probably a voting issue or is it?- if you want to change this then you have to clearly outline offensive reasons why this is not so. I tend to think that competing interpretations is inevitable but that sometimes it can be taken to the extreme. The job of a good affirmative is to point out how that is embodies in the negatives interpretation. Specification arguments are usually all right in my book. Make sure that you use it strategically via the 1NC.  The K- I discovered the “joy of the K.” Since then I have run almost every kind of critique imaginable incorporating performative elements as often as I could debate them. Form and content are mutually constitutive elements of debate and I enjoy watching teams that are capable of merging the two. This is not a blanket endorsement of ridiculousness for its own sake…win your framework and your impacts first. This game is about competing worlds; whoever gives me the better scenario wins. This includes affirmative plans, counterplans (or the world of the status quo), competing frameworks or procedural interpretations, and alternative methodologies. guess it’s safe to say that I don’t mind untopical “cheater” affs provided that you can justify your approach. This goes for both Aff and Neg…if you want to win your argument you will have to do substantial work on the impact level and this will probably require you to go further in your analysis. As for the standard array of arguments (disadvantages, counterplans,) here’s nothing I can really say that you shouldn’t already know…gotta win your links and impacts, if you’re running a K or a CP it needs to be competitive (means answer the perm), and you gotta give a substantial net benefit or a significant reason for preferring your perm argument.