Nielsen,+Kurtis


 * “Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.” **


 * My first officially typed and posted philosophy!!! We’ll begin with a little introduction. **

Hello fellow debaters! My name is Kurtis Nielsen. I graduated from Arizona State University with my degree in teaching in 2013 and am now coaching at my Alma Mater. Before graduating, I debated for ASU for 5 years. I have been a part of the debate community since it was introduced to me in high school 10 years ago and it has given me so much that I am elated that I can now give back as a coach.When I was debating, I was the 1A 2N but also have years of experience being double 2’s or 2A 1N. If anyone knows anything about me, they will know and inform you (as I will do now) that I have debated on all sides of the CX spectrum; from performance to straight up policy. In the last few years, I have come to enjoy a wider variety of the “policy” oriented arguments such as legit counter plans (unlike the illegit CPs like “word PICs” haha) and politics disads whereas before, I would mostly ONLY talk about the K. This is good news for everyone because it means I will no longer scoff and roll my eyes whenever I hear the phrase “next off, politics” and I will actually enjoy that debate.

That being said, we’ll now get into specifics:


 * Topicality ** – I am in a love/hate relationship with this argument. I love it when it comes to critical debates and when it is warranted in regular policy debates, but hate it when it is used as a time suck…I hate it more when YOU make it obvious that this argument is a time suck (if it’s strategic because you know the other team will spend two and a half minutes answering it, that’s different)…I hate it most when you can’t even tell me what ground you lose. Give me specific DAs or CPs that you can’t run anymore and why those might be core negative ground that you should be able to argue but can’t now. If you are a critical team, let it be known that I find “Topical version of your aff” arguments to be devastating, especially if it’s true. This is NOT to say that you will lose to this argument in front of me instantaneously, it is simply that more often than not, people tend to either pretend that the Neg never made such an argument OR the answer to it will be so terrible that I can’t even give you an example of one because it was so bad. In general, be smart about the T arguments you run in front of me and make strategic choices.

**Disads**: Love ‘em. Run ‘em. Win ‘em. Please have specific links though. I mean, as always, roll with what you have, but I like specificity. Also, if you are going for a DA in the 2NR, make sure you do the impact work and how these impacts affect the aff. Shut as many doors as possible for the 2A. For the aff, I find that I am more partial to link turns than impact turns but listening to an impact turn debate is always fun (I just find that impact turns take a lot more work to pull off).

**Counter Plans**: Always needs a CLEAR net benefit…just sayin…. Other than that, I love the CP debate. Please though, don’t get caught up in this delusion that the CP has to solve 100% of the aff in order to win. If you can win 80% of the aff and prove the other 20% is bad or doesn’t matter, game over! Oh yeah, and please try your best not to run a word PIC in front of me. If that is your thing and you are best at debating the word PIC, go for it. Just do a really good job when it comes to the perm debate and all of the Kritik baggage and impact calculus that comes with it.

**Kritiks**: They are my fav. HOWEVER, I have really high expectations when it comes to debating them and/or going for them in the 2NR. Do a good job or we will have a lot to talk about during the RFD. Aff: If you honestly believe that the K doesn’t link to your aff, then make mention of it. However, nine times out of ten, the neg will win a link. It is up to you to figure out what to do in the event that they do win the link. “Case outweighs” type arguments are pretty good along with decent “perm solvency” cards and a lot of “alternative fails” cards.


 * Case debate **: People should do A LOT more of this. I dig me some case debate. I really dig me some case turn debates. Those are always fun and it is fun watching the 1A sweat before the 1AR when he/she knows they have a metric crap-ton of case args to wade through. :)

**Theory**: Condo is ALWAYS good and NEVER bad. Same goes for multiple perms. I don’t really have any predispositions when it comes to any other theory argument. You should make these arguments (condo bad or multi perms bad) to make the other team spend time reading their theory blocks to answer it but don’t kid yourself into thinking that practically severing out of the 1AC in the 1AR or 2AR to go for dropped condo args means you can win the round. Trust me when I tell you, you won’t. I usually always default to “reject the arg, not the team.”

__**Final note**__: this is your debate and you should be having fun. Usually, things that aren’t fun, aren’t worth doing. I enjoy laughing and making jokes and if you have a sense of humor, we will all have a good time. I like clarity with a side order of speed. If you aren't clear - I will probably throw stuff at you. In addition, I believe that there is a fine line between speaking competitively and being rude. If you are rude, strike me now. I’ll put it this way:

Kurtis’s mood in the round is good now.
Nielsen, today – just now (Kurtis [Debater for Arizona State University, former captain of the River Valley high school speech and debate team and he is currently majoring in English Education] “How Kurtis feels when he judges a round.” All Major World Publications, Vol. 99, No. 1009. [|www.superhappyawesomejudgingphilosophies.com/Knielsen2012] __**I’m**__ going to type a bunch of random stuff here right now in hopes that you won’t read all of it and will only decide to read the highlighted part. However, I have a __**feeling**__ that I am not going to be able to type enough to make this fake card seem believable. Holy crap! What am I going to type for the rest of the cards in this mock-disadvantage? I never really thought about it until now….like right now….as I am typing all this stuff. __**Good**__ thing I am not well versed __**in this**__ thing called word economy which means that I can keep going around and a __**round**__. Have you figured out that the colored parts of this card are not in context with the rest of the card yet? If not, that’s cool. It’s understandable. **__No w__** orries brah! Super sick.

But, rudeness will trigger instability in Kurtis’s tolerance level and mood
Nielsen, today – just now (Kurtis [Debater for Arizona State University, former captain of the River Valley high school speech and debate team and he is currently majoring in English Education] “How Kurtis feels when he judges a round.” All Major World Publications, Vol. 99, No. 1009. [|www.superhappyawesomejudgingphilosophies.com/Knielsen2012] __** Don’t be rude dudes and dudets **__ ! Fo rizzle. There is simply no reason for it and should my stance on this issue become unclear at anytime, you should talk to me about it and I will make it crystal clear. __** I always **__ think that I __** have a high tolerancelevel for things but rudeness is my “line in the sand.”If you **__ feel the __** need to deliberately be rude **__ to me or your opponents, __** my tolerance for you ** **will become unstable** __ __**and my mood will quickly turn sour**__.

Unstable mood due to rudeness will result in a nuclear first strike on your speaker points.
Nielsen, today – just now (Kurtis [Debater for Arizona State University, former captain of the River Valley high school speech and debate team and he is currently majoring in English Education] “How Kurtis feels when he judges a round.” All Major World Publications, Vol. 99, No. 1009. [|www.superhappyawesomejudgingphilosophies.com/Knielsen2012] Yes, I think that __**the tag says it all . Should you decide that rudeness is the way to go**__ in round, __**I will launch a volley of nuclear weapons at your speaker points**__ which, as we all know, play quite the roll in terms of where you are seeded in elimination rounds, should you make it that far. The easiest way to avoid this strike is to simply be chill. __**It is totally cool to be competitive but don’t cross that line lest your speaker points pay the price.**__

EDIT 1/10/14 - Should you disagree with my decision, keep it to yourself because I don't care. I find that "fighting" with me over my decision to be rude and unbecoming of a member of the debate community. Clarification on certain parts of my decision is one thing, fighting because you don't agree is another. Humility is good. Take the decision with a smile and move on to the next round. In most cases, the way you explain an argument to me after a round, is not the way it was explained in the round. Or, at the very least, it's not as in-depth.