Last changed on
Sat September 15, 2018 at 2:41 AM CDT
(there's always a chance I forgot to update here, so check the date on the wiki to make sure this paradigm is current)
https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Thompson%2C+Nathan
Nathan Thompson
Norman HS 14
University of Oklahoma 18
Updated 15 September 2018 sitting in the cafeteria before Greenhill round 1
Background
I debated for Norman High School (OK) for four years, graduating in 2014. I qualified to NSDA Nationals my junior and senior year, breaking twice and placing 24th my junior year. I primarily debated in Oklahoma and did not have the resources to travel. I have worked at the UTNIF LD camp as an instructor in 2015, 2017, and 2018. I like email chains - nltpeasley@gmail.com
Preferences
Speaking Preferences
- Speed is fine. I will clear you twice if I cannot understand you.
- THAT SAID, please do not fly through analytics or theory. I am decent at flowing but hardly amazing; if you hit the jets while reading a bunch of blipping theory args, I am going to get lost and miss stuff on the flow.
- I only vote on stuff I've successfully flowed.
- Indicate where your cards and arguments begin and end and slow down for authors and tags.
Framework
- Value and criterion are not necessary so long as you give me a way to decide the ballot.
- Label your framework arguments as what they are - I don't like tricky preempts or prestandards that become more than what they were in the constructive.
Theory/T
- I default to competing interps, although I find I've gotten friendlier to reasonability args over the years.
- I am probably not the judge to read a half-dozen theory shells in front of - you can do it if you think it's strategic or (obviously) to check abuse, but know that I might not like it if you overdo it.
- You must have absolute clarity on what your interpretation is, especially if the text that you give your opponent is different than the one you read in round.
- I will listen to potential abuse as an argument.
- I do not know what Nebel T is and am not about to learn now. If you read anything like that, don't expect me to know any overly-specific jargon.
RVIs
- I will evaluate RVIs like anything else.
- I will evaluate 2AR RVIs in response to new 2NR theory.
- The RVI needs offense back to a counter-interp.
CX
- CX checks abuse!
- CX checks abuse!
- CX checks abuse!
- That said, I'm not flowing CX, so don't lie about what's happening there after the fact...
- Don't lie or intentionally obscure your answers.
- I don't care whether you sit or stand, but be engaged.
- Flex prep is fine as long as it's agreed to by both debaters.
Kritiks
- I am not opposed to Ks, but I'm not super well-read on the literature base; make sure you're clearly explaining what your K means and does. Remember that there are scholars who study some of these K authors for literal decades to understand them properly; you can at least give a simplified explanation here. None of us are experts.
- Make sure your alt doesn't suck. I am not enthusiastic about voting on vague K alts that you can't explain to any level of detail.
- Have clear tags.
- Your K should still link to an ethical framework.
Extension Evidence
- New evidence should only respond directly to an objection to the original argument - do not post-date the original card and do not read new offense.
Weighing
- Weighing is the difference between bad debate and decent debate. Please do it early and often. Explain your clash and interactions with their arguments.
- Give overviews in 2NR and 2AR that frame the round.
How to Get Good Speaks
- Weigh early and often through the round. Demonstrate how your arguments interact with others on the flow.
- Demonstrate a clear strategy and understanding of the importance of arguments on the flow. Don't just go for everything or straight down the flow.
- Collapse in the 2NR/2AR! It is not worth either of our time for you to go for everything every round.
- Be clear in CX. Good strategies needn't be disguised.
- Don't argue with me about my decision. I will dock you speaks.
If you are clear, I will probably give between a 28 (borderline) and 30 (perfect, you've done something laudable, or I learned something). If you are not clear, I will probably give you between a 26 and a 27.5. Any points lower than 26 will be for punitive reasons (overt aggression or rudeness, problematic, etc).
Closing
I think debate has a lot of potential for good, but it's going to take effort from both of us to ensure that it's reached. Ask me questions after round if you want. Just don't argue about the decision.
