Name: Aaron Harmon

Institution: Wake Forest University

Position: Graduate Assistant

Years Coaching: 4

Number of Tournaments this Year: 12

THEORY:

1. What decision making paradigm do you use? Policy maker with an affinity for kritiks.

2. What are your standards for the evaluation of T? T is on top. To be fair, I should admit I hardly ever vote on it, unless there is a clear story of abusive interpretation and demonstration of abuse.

3. What are your standards for counterplans (especially topical Cps, conditionality, international fiat, Agent of Action, and permutations)? I'm open to any counterplans and base my evaluation of specific counterplans on in round theory debate. I have no problem deciding a round on a theory voter if it is a good theory debate. 4. How do you react to new cases at the NDT? Sure.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS:

  1. Which T violations do you like/dislike? I don't have any favorite T violations. I'll listen to whatever. I've voted on Constructive Engagement and immediate. How is T evaluated? If the plan is not topical, I vote against it.
  2. What are your preferences for disads? The more specific the link story, the more I like them. I think a lot of the general disads are easy to beat, and usually write most of them off after the 2AC unless someone makes a big mistake. Counterplans? They are good. I vote on them often.

 

CRITIQUES/DEONTOLOGY:

  1. Do you like them? Yes.
  2. What standards do you use to evaluate them? That should be determined in the round. The debaters should tell me whether it has pre-fiat implications, solvency takeout, or both.
  3. How do they weigh against other impacts? Depends on the debate. Sometimes it comes before, sometimes not. It's up to the debaters to figure it out for me.

EVIDENCE:

  1. Do you read evidence after a round? Yes. I'd rather read less than more. I prefer it if debaters explain warrants in their cards rather than extending it by author and leaving me to decide what the ev says for them. I generally only read the cards that are referenced in the last rebuttals, either in a roadmap or in the speech.
  2. What are your standards of evaluation? Evidence that is newer has preference. Country specific evidence has more weight than newer, generic evidence. I always look to the rhetoric of the card to see which has better warrants and is more clearly articulated.
  3. Do you require full cites to be read? No, but it is helpful. How does that affect your evaluation of evidence? I think it is up to the debaters to indict author qualifications. Otherwise it doesn't affect my evaluation.
  4. What are your standards for an evidence challenge? It's up to the debaters. Depending on their decision, I could just throw out the card, but I could stake the debate on it. I would most likely just throw out the card unless they say otherwise.

STYLE:

  1. What if anything do you do to encourage comprehensible speaking? I say clear if I can't understand. I keep a fairly good flow, but if an argument can win or lose the round for you, I recommend slowing down and explaining it so everyone leaves the room happy.
  2. What constitutes an argument? Claim and warrant with a good story of how it weighs into the round as a whole.

    3. 3. Do you find tag-team CX objectionable? No, but too much undermines my perception of your confidence in your partner.

  3. What behavior or mannerisms do you find objectionable? Rudeness. Mean sarcasm. Over dramatization (Law and Order syndrome)

MISCELLANEOUS: Be nice. Weigh impacts. The more control you have over how I am flowing the round, the better off it will probably be for you. Errr, and have fun.

=====

Aaron Harmon

Dept of Communication

Wake Forest University

Box 7347

Winston-Salem, NC 27109

(336)768-9990

Back