Aaronson,+Josh

Preface: If you have any questions about my judging capabilities, defer to Leah Shapiro and ask her.

My name is Josh Aaronson, I'm a freshman at the University of Chicago. I do not have much experience with debate but here is how I will evaluate a round:


 * I cannot flow quickly. Thus, if you are going top speed (or even significantly faster than conversational speed), I will most likely not know what you are saying. I will almost certainly not call cards after the round. I will say slow and clear but if you do not adapt, your speaks will suffer. I prefer conversational speed.
 * I have zero background in dense philosophy, analytical or continental. If you are running a criterion more complicated than “maximizing welfare” I will most likely be confused. You must explain your framework EXTRAORDINARILY clearly and also slowly. If I don’t understand it, I will not vote on it.
 * I will not listen to theory. If your opponent is doing something unfair, just say that they are doing something unfair and if I agree, I will disregard their argument.
 * I don’t know most debate jargon. Treat me as the lay judge that I am.
 * I do not know debate norms (particularly out of round norms). I don’t know trends e.g. disclosure and flashing and I will not evaluate any argument related to these norms.
 * I will not evaluate non-topical kritiks. I will not evaluate non-topical positions at all.
 * I also will not listen to nibs, a prioris, pre standards, AFC. Probably a bunch of other arguments too. Ask Leah.

TLDR; I’m extremely lay and traditional and I prefer a slow and simple debate round about the topic and not complicated philosophy or debate norms.