Cenac,+Kevin

My philosophy is fairly open.

I do not like politics arguments because the debates on politics that I know are typically very shallow and don't actually consider the issues being discussed. That said, I will only hesitate to vote on a politics argument, which is to say I will vote on it. In order to increase your chances of me voting for a politics argument, make sure you debate it well i.e. take into account the reality of the political situation, for example whether or not the president really is popular or not right now, whether or not the policy in question will really affect the political situation/be perceived by politicians or not, etc. I will be visibly upset if there is a shallow politics debate or a shallow/just tagline debate. ..

Politics is pretty much the only argument I dislike. Unless you are making some really morally objectionable argument i.e. something that's blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc, I will vote on it. I am open to the nihilism arguments or arguments that say death is good, so long as it doesn't say death is good because of the prejudices previously mentioned; if you're going to argue that death is good, I would suggest you say that all humans should die or something like that.

I enjoy critical arguments and I'm open to any critical argument that doesn't express the prejudices mentioned above, but that being said I do have a higher standard for them. If it's clear to me that you don't understand the philosophy behind your criticism, I am unlikely to be very persuaded by your arguments, and more likely to be persuaded by the other team's arguments, even if there're defensive.

I also do think that you should have a balance of offensive and defensive arguments (ask me in round if you're unclear about the difference), although I won't hesitate to vote on a debilitating defensive argument i.e. terminal non-uniques or great inherency take-outs.

T is cool, but if you plan to go for it in the 2NR, try to make sure that the other team is really not topical; by that point in the debate it should be pretty clear how the other team is potentially not topical, if it's not then you probably shouldn't be going for the argument. Also, I think T is an all or nothing argument in the 2NR. I don't see the need to evaluate other arguments if the team is not topical; I guess I'm old school/stock issues in that respect.

Most other D/As and CPs are cool with me, again so long as they don't express the prejudices mentioned above. I don't think there is any assumed status of a CP or criticism, although If I had to say I would say that all arguments are conditional unless otherwise mentioned.

Arguments that call for some sense of moral responsibility should have a clear framework/role of the ballot if you want me to vote on them, although I'll probably let you get away with some general moral obligation if the other team doesn't contest it heavily.

Try to have fun in the debate, I know that a lot of people want to win, but it's a game so have fun. If it's not a game to you, then at least be respectful. If you're especially disrespectful (it's generally pretty clear when someone has crossed the line in a debate; I consider expressing the prejudices mentioned above being especially disrespectful) I will make a note of it and your speaker points will suffer; you make even lose the round if the argument/comment is especially egregious.

Don't dominate your partner, C-X/Policy is a team sport. There are two people on each team, and four people debating, I want to hear four voices, not just two or three. Your speak points will suffer if you dominate your partner.

I am more than willing to discuss my decision after a round, but I'm not down for a shouting match afterwards.