Kraut,+Aaron


 * Updated for '12 - '13 season**

I debated 4 years (LD & PF) @ Marlboro High School. This is my third year debating in college (I'm a junior) Freshman year I debated for Fordham University and since Soph year I've debated for Rutgers University. I major in philosophy and double minor in political science and comparative literature.

While I still prefer extremely critical debate, I'm extremely familiar with f/w, T, theory, & politics debates because of the strats people tend to run against me. That said, do what you do best and I'll adapt, whether you're a straight up team or a one off Baudrillard team, I'm down with either as long as its a good competitive round. I love debates that challenge, and even attempt to destroy, the current nature of debate. I think debate is headed down a pretty shitty path so any team that tries to revise that path will be greatly rewarded. This doesn't exclude straight up teams - if you can create an awesome debate that actually makes people THINK about the implications of your policy/plan, I would love to judge you as well. Specifics are below -


 * __POLICY:__**


 * F/W:**

- As indicated above, I think this is the only hope for the activity. Debate will probably die sooner or later, so this should be your chance to argue why you do or don't want it to. I don't care how you do it, that's up to you to decide. This doesn't mean I need to you to explicitly explain why debate should or shouldn't die, but make arguments as to why debate as a whole (or some parts of it) are worth preserving (or not). - Articulate the Net Benefits so I don't have to guess. I don't have any biases as to what either side should be doing, so if you're going for framework, you should be explaining to me why the other team's specific form of debate is a reason to reject them. I'm not persuaded by arguments that appeal to preserving debate norms for the sake of preserving them (give me warrants!!!). - On the neg, often I don't respond to f/w until the 1NR so i think the conventions of debating f/w are open to in round debate as well. If you don't want me to default to the line-by-line, tell me why. I'm down for it. - Definitely open to arguments about why holding people answerable to the flow is bad, etc. Debate is a game so whatever f/w you think makes it the most fun is up to you. - If there is no f/w debate, then I default to the line-by-line - Don't be boring, pleaseeeeee.


 * T & all procedurals:**

- These arguments are very strategic, BUT i will never vote on the argument "All we could do was run theory/f.w./T/etc.!!!" - Good procedural debates tell a story that draws its links from the other team's arguments and cards. Abuse stories need be just that - stories. Generally, I do NOT care about topic education and I think the idea that whatever's discussed is limited to the words of the rez is silly. If you want me to vote on topic specific ed, fairness, limits, predictability (w/e), then articulate why reading a 1AC that has nothing to do with the topic is bad for debate and articulate what sort of future precedent it will set. Likewise, I hate when critical teams stand up and read a bunch of RP bad evidence - its boring. Tell me why your specific form of education is good and what sort of effect this education has on future discussions of the topic. - Very open to GOOD (thats in caps for a reason) kritiks of F/W, T, etc. (99% of the time that's how I answer them on the aff). That said, you need a good explanation of your impacts or I won't care why reading f/w or T is bad. - I default to competing interpretations


 * DA's and CP's:**

- I appreciate a good CP or DA throw down but I think people kill this form of debate by being lazy. So if this your style, articulate your story and use the evidence as a template for that story. The evidence isn't the argument - it is a tool for you to use in order to make an argument. - Also, be SMART!!! Awesome politics scenarios aren't created by cards, they're created by smart debaters who understand the context of their evidence. The only reason why this form of debate is bothersome to me is because people get caught up in the tech of it so they don't logically evaluate the scenario. But if you're SMART, then I'd be happy to vote on your PIC, agent CP, or DA.


 * K's:**

- Well versed in "continental" philosophy (a meaningless label nowadays). Anything that seems to fall within that, I'm sure I have at least some (if not a lot) experience with. I mostly debate Nietzsche, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari, Lacan, and other jokesters of the like. Feel free to ask me before the round if I'm familiar with your authors (I'm willing to tell you what books I have or have not read by your author) - With regard to contemporary analytic philosophy, I would say my areas of significant knowledge include: social and political philosophy, religion, decision theory, action theory, metaphysics and aesthetics. My areas of competence include: phil of physics, ethics, epistemology, and phil of cognitive science - I've probably read most of your K lit, but that means its your job to take the lit and apply it to construct an argument. But that means you need to explain it to me in the exact fashion you'd like me to interpret it so when I'm giving my RFD I can explain to the other team exactly what the hypertrophying of language (or w.e.) is and does in context of your argument rather than in context of the book its from. Same goes for the aff. That's not to say I won't vote on vague K alts or aff advocacies, but you need to make substantial arguments why you shouldn't have to explain further and why doing so would be counter-intuitive. - ALSO, if you want me to co-opt you interpretation of the lit when examining your arguments and how they interact with others on the flow, then you need to tell me to do that. If your 1AC/1NC utilizes a specific interpretation of "ressentiment", etc. then you need to make that explicit in your analysis or else I have to default to my interpretations of your K lit based on the reading I have done independently. It's true I know what most of the buzzwords mean, but my interpretation is almost always different from the one debaters try to employ. - Framework is key. I don't see how you can win a good K w/out taking shots at the aff's f/w on all levels, especially (well, first and foremost) the meta level. Doesn't necessarily mean you have to have a separate flow to indict the other team's methodology, but you at least need to give me reasons for rejecting the starting point of the other team's framework (ex. if you win we need to take a different ontological approach than that assumed by the 1AC and explicate what this means for the f/w of the round on the line-by-line, that's probably fine). - I flow the text of cards. Thus, your tags are rather meaningless to me and I vote on the content of your arguments, how you guys explain it and how you use it. As a result, I'll never vote on a dropped impact turn in a critical round without an explanation of the warrant of the card and how it interacts with the aff (same goes for a critical aff if you're trying to win a turn on f/w or something)

- Not as well versed in critical race theory, but I'm starting down that road now as I'm quite interested in it. I'm open to Wilderson type arguments, and all other race type arguments. I apologize for using the words "race type" arguments, I understand that may be offensive. Unfortunately, I can't think of another way to say it while still being explicit. Also, I understand that it's highly problematic that I can't conceive of another way to express this, as well as the fact that shit like this is a reason why teams run arguments like these to begin with. Over the past year I've been exposed to and have taken part in a lot of these debates. I've found that many judges feel uncomfortable being called out in this type of round for being guilty of the same things the team is criticizing - I'm not one of those judges. I LIKE to feel uncomfortable and out of place in these rounds; if I don't, then you're probably not doing a good job. Honestly, I can't be guilted into a voting for a team, I just can't. I've been known to be rather emotionless as a debater, and I'm the same way as a judge. If you can incite some sort of emotional response from me in this type of debate, then kudos to you and you'll be highly rewarded with awesome speaks. That said, focus your performance/arguments around the warrants of your arguments, not some attempt to emotionally guilt me into voting for you. That shit just won't work. Other than that, I'm really open to these debates and I do have significant knowledge with regard to psychoanalysis, so I can adjudicate high theory debates with regard to Wildersonian type arguments that draw on Lacan.

- If you're good at what you do, then you'll win in front of me. I know, shocker. No, seriously though, If you do what you do, I'll be able to adjudicate the round as you want me to. I'm a philosophy major and given my background in both analytic and continental philosophy, I shouldn't have a problem understanding the complexities of your arg't or literature. If I do, then (a) you're not explaining it well enough, (b) you're misappropriating the lit and at the end of the round you've done next to no analysis so I'm left to sort things out on my own and dig through the lit on my own - you don't want this b/c even though I've been debating critical lit for a while, I still approach it in a much more academic sense than I do debate sense, (c) the other team actually tries to debate you on your lit and the line-by-line gets messy with little comparative analysis - again, this is bad for you b/c i find myself examining unexplained warrants in a very academic sense grounded in my prior knowledge (since you're not providing me with any). I can almost assure you that if this happens, both teams will probably be screwed b/c it's extremely rare that a debate arg't correctly applies the literature without manipulating it to form the argot. Manipulating it is fine, and you probably should, but if you don't explain to me how and why you do that, then I can only view your argument in relation to the opponent's arguments and the actual primary source you're citing.


 * Theory:**

- It's whatever. I think the zero-point of debate is when teams just read theory blocks back at one another. If i thought this was interesting then I would just take your tubs/computers and read your ev in silence. Make substantive arguments with abuse stories (like i mentioned above in f/w). I vote on theory if I need to but I try to vote on more substantive arguments than a dropped sub point on a crappy severance block. The key here is not to while and to make arguments.

__**LD:**__


 * Speed:**

I'm fine with it. I'm a policy debater so I'm used to it. But if you're spreading be clear. I won't say "clear", i'll probably just stare at you with a blank expression if I can't understand you (if this happens, you should do something about it). If i can't understand you, then you probably shouldn't be trying to speak as fast. That said, I prefer a fast debate (if one or both debaters are clear) b/c it allows for more arguments and theoretically, results in a better debate with more developed ideas than the typical and blippy ones were all so used to hearing. Honestly, if you can spread 600 words/min and are clear I'm totally cool with that. Likewise, I'm open to theory arguments concerning why speed is bad for LD. I don't want the round to be a reflection of what I like/enjoy, I want it to be a reflection of what's said in the round. If your a debater that doesn't spread and your strat is to read a speed K, I'm definitely open to that. I think there are tons of great arguments to be made that explain why speed may be really bad, but MAKE them! Don't make generic fairness, ground or education claims - I'm not persuaded by appeals to preserve debate norms absent a discussion why those debate norms are actually worth preserving in the 1st place. This probably means you wot win this argument reading blocks or making tag line extensions in front of me, sorry (but not really).


 * Important Notes:**

(1) I don't like whining - it's annoying. I don't arbitrarily decide if arguments are abusive or have preconceived notions as to what abuse is. You must make good, intelligent arguments if you what to have any chance of getting me to vote on theory, f/w or another procedural (2) Let the opponent answer questions - If you refuse to let your opponent answer a question in CX, I'll give you low speaks b/c it shows your lack of strategy and unwillingness to have the most competitive round possible. However, if the opponent is rambling or just being non responsive, then you can obviously cut he/she off. (3) "I ( or no one) can/can't understand their argument" is NOT an argument. It's your job to clarify highly complex arguments in cross-ex. That said, if you make a valid attempt to do this and the opponent is super vague, I'll give you some leeway when evaluating theory arguments.


 * AFF:**

- I think debate is an intellectual playground first and foremost. It's a space where we can question the most fundamental assumptions/beliefs/normative statements/etc. without consequence. That being said, I'll literally allow the aff to do anything they want as long as you tell me why i should vote aff. VP's, VC's, Standards, etc are all optional in my mind because all of these norms are just strategic ways to win rounds. If you can come up with a more strategic way to debate than using community norms, then I'm all ears. - Must you debate the topic? I don't think so. I'll let you talk about whatever you want as long as it somehow justifies an aff ballot (ex. whiteness affs, hypercritical affs, etc). It is the NEG's responsibility to stick the aff to the topic - Answering multiple off - I don't listen to whiny debaters who complain about time skew, instead i listen to debaters who explain why time skew is bad, sets a bad precedent (w.e. that means) and impacts it out. That said, if they neg reads 5 off with 1 (or 0) cards on each, I'll let you group the flows to make it a theory debate. Any argument goes. - PERMs: obviously make them. Because I let the neg do w/e that means I give full leeway as the aff to actually challenge whether or not their f/w interp is competitive and whether the k's alt does anything. Also feel free to perm fiat. I really really enjoy fiat debates that discuss whether the aff/neg worlds are at all different. These are the best debates b/c I don't really give a shit what your evidence says, all I care about is why you're reading it. Also, I'm not really sure how the PERM functions in LD b/c its a values debate, so you need to articulate HOW the PERM functions and WHAT it does. - I expect you to make 3 arguments in response to every neg argument (ex. No link, No Impact, Turn of some sort). Obviously if you have 1 amazing argument (like a really well thought out double turn) then you don't need to make 3. This means group and cross-apply argt's on the flow to put a lot of pressure on your opponent. If you do this, you get high speaks. - Not sure how a 1AC policy approach presents a certain value as worth voting for. I don't require VP's or VC's, or anything really, but you should probably advocate some sort of value and give me a reason why your policy proves endorsing would be a good idea. The flip side to that is telling me why the debate should be used to evaluate the best policy option, as opposed to the best value. I will and do vote on these different approaches, but have an approach. If your 1AC has a plan and you don't give a f/w discussion that explains how your aff interacts in the round, a nag ballot will be a really easy decision for me.


 * NEG:**

- Do whatever you want as long as you give me a reason to negate. That includes K's, PICs, PIKs, CP's, DA's, T, and whatever else you can come up with - I expect you to make 3 arguments in response to every aff argument (ex. No link, No Impact, Turn of some sort). Obviously if you have 1 amazing argument (like a really well thought out double turn) then you don't need to make 3. This means group and cross-apply argt's on the flow to put a lot of pressure on your opponent. If you do this, you get high speaks. - Be ready to answer the PERM and do it well.


 * On Specific Types of Positions:**

- On T/framework: see above in policy, I expect you to do similar things although I understand you don't have as much time. Still, a good f/w debate is not a shallow battle of interp's - that's amateur hour. I vote on abuse claims if they come from a well developed story - this does NOT mean: "Nietzsche is so unpredictable vote them down for even walking in here with that." Yea that doesn't go over well with me. Is fiat mandatory? what is fiat? have this debate and you'll keep me interested - DAs or CPs: Go for it but do it well. Nothing is worse than an LDer who tries to go 3,4 or 5 off and only has 1 argument on each flow by the end of the round. If you go multiple off be strategic, blow up the aff's weakest flow and be smart. - Ks: (see above in policy). I'm a philosophy major so I'll probably understand whatever crazy arg't you can come up with. That said, don't read a Nietzsche or Baudrillard K just to adapt to me because I will cringe in frustration if you mishandle and misinterpret the lit. If you don't explain buzzwords then you're leaving me to interpret them at the end of the round based on my own knowledge - this probably isn't good for you if the round is centered around the concept of "ressentiment" or "hyper-realism", "simulation", etc. A good K debater characterizes every aff argument in context of the K (this means every aff arg't becomes a new link to the K, justifies rejecting the perm, etc.)