Cook,+John

Debated 4 years of HS (Winfield, Kansas), 2 in College (Baylor University)
 * John Cook**

I am open to anything. I am also incredibly judgmental. I would rather hear a unique, new argument with perhaps less precise execution than the tightest strategy executed in the most boring way possible. That being said, what I would rather hear and what will win a substantive debate may not be the same. Use your own discretion here; that’s why you are the debater, right? Don’t be mean and overbearing; don’t be too timid.
 * __General Thoughts (whatever "thinking" is):__**

I may lack familiarity with the specific scenarios/agents discussed but I have experience with these arguments in form and keep a tidy flow of them. If this is what you’re best at, cool.
 * __“Policy arguments” (whatever that means)__**

These are the arguments with which I have the most familiarity. You will not need to read your “idiot translation” blocks for me. This does not give you carte blanche to toss about the phrase “metaphoric condensation” seven times and become outraged when I do not contrive a reason why this is a response to the aff for you. I am inclined to believe that permutations to “critical arguments” make little to no sense unless the aff is already winning substantive arguments on the link and impact level. I find it incredibly likely that if the permutation does the aff, and the negative has explained why the aff links and why that is the worse than the "impacts to the aff" and/or implicates the idea of "aff solvency", those arguments remain applicable to the permutation. Impact comparison and/or link turns would be time much better spent and certainly necessary if you want me to vote for these so-called "permutations".
 * __“Critical Arguments” (whatever that means)__**

I’m an English nerd. Gerunds, direct objects, participial phrases: This stuff is awesome. If you know what you’re talking about or have a crafty violation, I’m certainly willing to vote on topicality. That being said, I have a higher threshold on topicality than most. I am not sure that whispering “education, competitive equity, rule of the game, and…uh… just because” at the bottom of a shell is a compelling reason the other team should lose. If you prove abuse (potential or real is debatable) and explain why that abuse warrants my ballot, then you will win my ballot.
 * __Topicality/Theory (whatever “genocide” sounds like):__**

I am not averse to affs without plans, affs that don’t affirm the resolution, or affs that perform. I tend to think that the aff should at least discuss its pertinence to the resolution and/or debate or have a cogent defense of the presentation of your argument or a criticism of the necessity of such discussions. If someone tells me that these affs are cheating, I will listen to their arguments and remain open to persuasion on the issue. Not unexpectedly, I find that the smart cheaters are often very far ahead on these debates. Take that for what it is. My recreational reading includes thinkers like Bataille, Zizek, Deleuze, and Nietzsche. I am often made to feel as if this is something for which I should be apologetic. That sucks. I watch a lot ridiculous television shows and movies and enjoy well-placed pop culture references. I don’t necessarily think talking about helping people, saving lives, fixing oppression, etc. is awesome and the obvious choice but if you tell me to, I’ll (re)consider it. Personally, I’m bankrupt of most things that make people like other people. If you can make me laugh during a debate, that will bode well for you. But trying too hard is like caring too much about not being a fascist: it only makes you a fascist – meaning I won’t laugh and will instead frown and perchance even think mean thoughts about you.
 * __“My” background (whoever “I” am)__**