Antony Nation Paradigm

Last changed 4/30 5:38P CDT

Name: Tony Nation

School – Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS – Assistant Coach

Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State – Been coaching pretty much ever since.

Email: antonynation@gmail.com – add me to the chain

If you’re looking for LD specific, it’s at the bottom. I’d still suggest reading the whole thing.

Prep time ends when you remove the flash drive, stand up and start approaching the other team. Once they have the files, you should be ready to speak. Speech time starts after you have given me the roadmap and begin the actual speech.

I would consider myself a pretty decent flow since I use my laptop, but don’t go crazy. If you’re not clear or I’m behind I’ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you don’t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and haven’t told me that’s what’s going on. So, if you’re giving an overview up top, tell me that’s what you’re going to do.

As far as argument types and preferences, I really don’t care what you run as long as you’re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, I’m looking for offense. I can’t remember one time I’ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. I’m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless there’s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you I’m not a “stock issues” judge. I’d say that if not given direction, I would be best described as a policy-maker.

Notes about specific arguments:

All arguments have a claim and at least one warrant.

I don’t have a pre-conceived notion about conditional arguments. You probably should be prepared to debate that when necessary.

Without a very specific link, I have a hard time believing that your generic criticism means a case won’t solve at all. If you argue that there isn’t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, that’s fair. But you should probably be able to conjure up at least one similar historical example. The worst critical debates are where people just read long card after long card and then only refer back to the author/date. We’ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?

This doesn’t mean I won’t vote for “generic” arguments. I ran them when I debated and coach my teams to run them.

My best advice is to do whatever you need to do to win the round. I’m open to anything.

Other Notes: Humor helps your points. I've given a 30 only one time when I didn't laugh. I don't believe that 'cheating' counterplans are cheating. I think that it's a legitimate test of a policy to discuss when it should happen or why part of it should/should not happen. Legislatures consider both of those things, especially in committee. A clever Haiku is acceptable in the 2NR/2AR. I'd say its acceptable elsewhere, but I don't think your 1AR will have that kind of time. Impact turns? Go right ahead. If you want to tell me that it's cool for a million humans to die because it saves some rare form of slug that has cancer curing venom, go right ahead. I think it's important to weigh impacts. I have four cats. Do with that information what you will. Spec and advocate arguments work sometimes as well. It's part of critical thinking. Not all authors write with the exact same premise. Spending and politics uniqueness should probably be less than 48 hours old (well, newer than the last time we enacted new spending or a similar law.) If you're reading camp uniqueness for spending/politics, I'll be offended. Completely new arguments in the 2s will probably not win you the round. I'll give the 1AR tons of leeway since I remember that struggle. If there is a new DA in the 2 and the 1AR decides to give you a straight turn for Christmas, I'll probably give them a 30, even if they lose. At this point I'm just rambling, but you've gotten a deep insight into my mind. Make it worth your time. I'll leave you with this. If you don't do the work for me and I have to figure out everything for myself, you either won't like the outcome or I'll eventually vote on presumption.

LD – I don’t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesn’t have a defined value or criterion. You can debate that model, you can advocate a policy, multiple policies, hypotest or run critical arguments. This means you should be prepared to answer those arguments if they are presented. I also have zero preference for speed in LD. If someone goes fast and they are capable of it, then so be it. The only rules I’m going to have you follow are speech times, speech order and prep time. I recently had a long conversation about the place of counterplans in LD. I came out with a couple of thoughts. 1: If the resolution defines an actor (eg: United States) I think the affirmative should be prepared debates about other actors. Example: If the affirmative is defending the USFG should implement a policy, but it's better done at a state/local level, that's a legitimate argument for the negative. You're not going to convince me that it isn't the negative's ground without a really good reason. 2: If while researching, the negative finds a better idea than what the resolution calls for to solve a specific problem, the affirmative should be able to defend their action in comparison. If you want an example, you'll have to wait until after May 5th because I'm not giving my debater's strategy away. My point being, if the affirmative says the US should do x because it will provide educational opportunities to people who don't give them now and the negative is able to say that x is a bad idea compared to y then I think that the affirmative chose the ground and the negative found something within that ground to argue.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R9 L262 L268 Aff Aff on a 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R9 L173 L119 Aff Aff on a 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R7 L190 L287 Neg Neg on a 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R7 L261 L314 Neg Neg on a 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R6 L149 L302 Aff Aff on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R6 L342 L228 Aff Aff on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R5 L304 L234 Neg Neg on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R5 L313 L165 Neg Neg on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R4 L317 L108 Aff Aff on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R4 L319 L144 Aff Aff on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R3 L257 L288 Aff Aff on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R3 L248 L207 Aff Aff on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R2 L244 L141 Aff Aff on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R2 L309 L259 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R1 L260 L325 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 LD R1 L208 L256 Neg Neg on a 2-0
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 5LD Semis Oologa TD BisKel AH Aff Aff on a 2-1
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R6 Kickap SB BTW SR Neg
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R6 TSAS HW Russel NA Aff
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R5 Jenks GM MetChr CM Neg
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 5LD R4 MetChr AM Oologa TS Aff
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R3 TSAS HW Bartle MH Neg
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CLD R3 Kickap CJ BisKel EW Neg
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CPF R2 Kickap AC Owasso JW Aff
Union Forensic Society Invitational 2/1/2019 CPF R2 Kickap MM Muskog OS Aff
Sunflower District Tournament 12/7/2018 CX R4 10 Marin & Walentowski 1 Abbott & Herman Aff Aff on a 3-0
Sunflower District Tournament 12/7/2018 CX R3 1 Harris & Horton 6 Walker & Willis Neg Neg on a 2-1
Sunflower District Tournament 12/7/2018 CX R2 1 McCallop & Fasig 11 Archer & Schroeder Neg Neg on a 3-0
Sunflower District Tournament 12/7/2018 CX R1 4 Baxter & Powner 9 Kurtzweil & Vu Aff Aff on a 3-0
Panther Debate Tournament 11/9/2018 JV SF Hutchinson Unruh & Miller Manhattan Brockman & Singh Neg Neg on a 3-0
Panther Debate Tournament 11/9/2018 JV QF Kapaun Mount Carmel Wemhoff & Olson Manhattan Brockman & Singh Neg Neg on a 3-0
Panther Debate Tournament 11/9/2018 JV R3 Goddard Forrest & Jahay Garden City Mueller & Wright Neg
Panther Debate Tournament 11/9/2018 JV R1 Kapaun Mount Carmel Wemhoff & Olson Campus Reist & Landis Aff
JW Patterson Invitational 10/20/2018 VCX R6 Blue Valley Southwest SS Lansing Sr KS Aff
JW Patterson Invitational 10/20/2018 VCX R5 Blue Valley Northwest KV Derby SC Aff
JW Patterson Invitational 10/20/2018 VCX R1 Derby HN Crossings Christian CD Aff
Aaron Thomas Memorial Invitational at Andover Central 10/5/2018 Vars R4 Sumner Jaleon Brown & Neymara Freeman Hutchinson Jenna Ramsey & Adriana Owens Neg
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 Pol Octos Evanston Twp LC Wayzata LN Neg Aff on a 2-1
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 Pol R6 Niles West FW South SC Neg
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 Pol R5 Wayzata HR Evanston Twp LC Aff
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 Pol R4 South DM Niles West PS Neg
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 Pol R3 Univ Of Chicago Lab CK Blue Valley Southwest WuSt Neg
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 Pol R2 Rosemount HS Edina YY Aff
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 Pol R1 Edina SB Harker SY Aff
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/14/2018 VADB8 R6 SM West WW Derby DH Aff
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/14/2018 VADB8 R5 BV West MM Lawrence RV Aff
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/14/2018 VADB8 R3 Topeka High RR Olathe West DU Aff
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/14/2018 VADB8 R1 Lansing SS BV North MD Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 LD R9 L216 L327 Aff Aff on a 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 LD R9 L151 L100 Aff Aff on a 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 LD R8 L293 L102 Neg Aff on a 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 LD R8 L289 L248 Neg Neg on a 2-1