McNamara,+Redmond

Short: I debated LD for Bellarmine, I now debate for UChicago. I don't pretend to be tab (I don't think anyone is), but I'll give you the best decision I can. Debate well. Don't worry too much about pleasing me. Just do what you usually do, then weigh, because I will be annoyed if you don't weigh. Also, don't be bigoted.

Intro: The reason I don't say I'm tab is because I think everyone approaches each debate round with some expectations. For instance, most judges require warranting i.e. reasoning, when a lot of really important moral systems critique universal, a priori reason. It is no wonder that Kantian positions are so common. This is not a bad assumption to make, and most debaters engage in it without thinking. As a result, most debate rounds are resolved in this paradigm. I'll try not to force this on you if you so choose (e.g. you may argue for a Foucauldian historical paradigm) but I do expect that you found your arguments, whatever that means, just in the interest of giving the debate some purpose. Similarly, I don't think any text has a definitive interpretation because there is always some uncertainty in dealing with language, and therefore I encourage debaters to challenge the traditional readings of, say, Kant, if they so choose. I'm fine with traditional interpretations, but I do want to leave that door open. I'll try to let the debaters control the debate. Just make sure you tell me why I should believe one thing or another, and importantly, why I should vote on one thing or another. If that means the aff saves more lives and both debaters assume that's a good thing, great. If that means the aff wins an understanding of Kant which allows for provisional imperatives, and both debaters agree that the Kant evidence is really important, that's cool too.