My background is primarily Policy and Public Forum Debate. I am rapidly gaining experience in LD.

FOR LD DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed. I hate listening to spreading and my brain borderline shuts down if you speak too fast. If I can't understand you because you're going too fast, I'm probably not flowing and probably not really tracking your arguments at all. I like to judge primarily on my flow, so you should probably slow down a bit.

I won't vote on tricks.

My background is primarily CX and PF, so you may have to briefly explain the purpose of some of the very LD specific terminologies or theories.

Explain why your value/criterion are preferable to your opponents'.

Please do impact calculus, and please ground your impacts in reality.

Be nice to each other. Being rude or snarky sucks.

FOR POLICY DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed (especially constructive speeches when you are presenting your case). I would much prefer quality of arguments over quantity. If I can't keep up or understand your arguments, you won't win them. I know you like to spread in Policy, but I borderline hate it. SLOW DOWN. You can do it. You can adapt to your judge's paradigm. You are capable of doing that, I promise. You don't have to run 6 off-case on the neg. You really don't have to!

I would like to vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am generally okay with everything as long as they are explained well. Don't just read your arguments, explain their purpose in the round! However, I am more of a "traditional" judge in that I would usually much prefer a solid debate about the resolution rather than endless K debates with super generic links. Lately I have seen more bad K debates than good traditional debates. It makes me very sad. I judge primarily based on what I see on my flow. It is in your best interest to use roadmaps, signposting, clear taglines, and SLOW THE HECK DOWN to make my job of flowing the debate as easy as possible.

I also prefer impacts grounded in realism. If every single policy debater for 50 years that has been claiming nuclear war as an impact was actually right about it, the world would've been destroyed 1,000 times over. But regional conflict? Economic downturn? Environmental damage? Oppression of minority populations? These are impacts we've actually witnessed as a result of policy action. I strongly prefer impacts that I as an Earthling can actually visualize happening.

I will be friendly with speaker points to debaters who are friendly to each other. I will be unfriendly with speaker points to debaters who are unfriendly with each other. This should be a fun experience for everyone. Just be nice to each other.

Nicholas.Phillips@bellinghamschools.org

email chain: rubywasserman795@ gmail.com

currently coach for garfield. i debated there locally and nationally for 3 years as a 1a/2n, mostly doing ks. even tho thats what im most familiar with, i'll absolutely listen to and vote on basically any policy arg if its ran well.

ruby or judge is fine i dont mind!

if you have questions abt anything, please ask me before the round!

ks / k affs:
love!! please run your most specific k in front of me, i want to see cool interesting niche stuff in rounds (if you have a cthulhucene file i am the judge for you). performance on the neg is so fun and i wish i saw it more. im also a huge fan of more generic ks like cap or security as long as theyre contextualized well to the aff! as long as its well explained and debated, ill buy just about anything. im not the most familiar with high theory / pomo stuff (except for bataille) but if its your thing id love to see it, just know you might have to do a little bit more explaining.

you dont have to sell me on the alt to win the round, although itll help. i generally went for links + framework as a debater, and if you decide to go for this, go all out (ie should i even weigh the aff at all). i am probably more comfortable with you link you lose than many people. if you do decide to go for the alt, explain to me how it resolves the links and why its more important than the aff.

k affs should probably be related (somewhat) to the topic. besides that, do whatever you want. performance is amazing. you can do whatever feels best on framework - debate sucks, countermodels, impact turns - just explain why each of those things matters in the context of the round and debate as a whole. kvk rounds are something i dont have much experience in but i would love to see them. i think k affs probably get perms but i could definitely be convinced otherwise. presumption is a very persuasive argument against k affs imo. i can absolutely be convinced that my ballot doesnt really do anything for the project of the affirmative.

i am most familiar with the fem k, so if youre at all curious, please ask me about it / shoot me an email! id love to judge a great fem round :)

t framework:
i was usually on the other side of this debate, but i think framework is generally a good and convincing argument. tell me what debate would look like under your model, if its different than the squo, why it matters. i generally think structural fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but i could be convinced otherwise with good debating. debate is probably a game (but that isnt very important). education and portable skills are the most important impacts for me in a fw debate - fairness is usually an internal link to those.

k affs probably arent fair, but its up to the neg to convince me that it matters.

cps:
to be honest i dont think ive ever ran a straightforward cp + da strat. im not sure what that says about me as a debater, but as a judge all it means is that im less familiar with it. the more specific your cp is, the better (best if its cut specifically for the aff youre facing). very specific and well-articulated counterplans are really cool! make it clear how your cp avoids the net benefit and what that means for the perm. im not exactly excited about your plank / advantage cps but ill vote for them if you explain how they depart from the squo and are competitive with the aff.

disads:
same as above, im less familiar with this side of debate. ideally, your da should tell me a story about what the aff does and why it matters. impact calculus is the most important part of your da: explain to me why your nuclear war is bigger, faster, more likely, whatever.

t (vs policy):
i dont love t vs affs that are pretty obviously topical, but if its mishandled i will absolutely vote on it. be as specific as you can, and if you do end up going for it, really commit! take time to explain your standards and how they matter in the context of the round / the debate space as a whole. i think t is at its best vs very unpredictable small affs.

theory:
i love tricky theory arguments. if youre going to go for theory, please actually commit to it (similar to t). i will often default to reject the argument and not the team, so dedicate time to blowing up your violations / voters and explaining why they are important to convince me otherwise. dont just make every little thing a voter and then not explain to me why it's something to vote on.

dont read arguments like racism good. you will lose and i will talk to tab / your coaches.