Hansen,+Gerrit

I have been debating for 3 years, and am currently debating at George Mason University **Overall Notes** I vote on the flow, and try to be as objective as I can when I judge. That being said, I am a K debater, and that is obviously my prefered style of argumentation. I will still vote on Policy style arguments/ Framework(if it is run well). **Specific args** **T**- Meh. I honestly don't find this argument persuasive, but I default to competing interps. **Framework**- This is a debate. Defending debate norms is cool, and I am fairly familliar with both sides of this debate. That being said, I am probably more sympathetic to exclusion args then policy education args. **Theory**- Potential abuse is not a voter unless theory is dropped or impacted out VERY well. Theory is almost always a cheap shot, but i will vote on it. I don't really like theory unless abuse has actually happend, but i recognise its strategic use. **Cp's**- They can be cool, they can be stupid. This is one of the few postitions I buy theory on. Other than that, do you. **Da**- They're cool. The more creative the better. (I don't know what else you where looking for) **K's**- I really enjoy a GOOD K debate. I HATE a stupid K debate. I personally run mostly high theory arguments, but I also run queer theory and similiar identity arguments as of recently. The impact debate is very important to me, you need to win the reason you come first in the round (duh). Also, do not assume I will just accept your arguments because I understand them, you still need to explain yourself and give warrants. **Areas of literature where I have a good amount of "Knowledge":** Deleuze Deleuze and Guattari Nietzsche Queer Theory **Areas of literature where I have decent amount of "knowledge":** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Baudrillard (Yes even your Baudrillard) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Spanos <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Spivak <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Afro-Pessimism <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Zizek <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lacan <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Foucault <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Areas of literature where I have a small, but existent amount of "knowledge":** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Indigenous Studies <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Schopenhauer <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Badiou <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bataille <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Agamben <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Anything else you can assume that I only have tangential knowledge of.** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Speaker Points- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(Stolen from Shree Awsare) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">< 25: You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">25: You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">29-29.9: You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, you were hilarious (or if you aren't funny, you somehow connected with me as a judge and made me want to care), and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">30: Life changed.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**TL,DR: I'll try to be as much of a blank slate as possible, but am probably at least slightly biased towards the K.**