Vail,+Nicholas

Senior Trinity University. Debated for Baltimore City College in high school.

You should do what you do best, do not try to change your arguments to try and say something you think I want to hear. I enjoy good clear debates on any topic rather than bad debates on a topic I am interested in. I feel like a lot of judges say this, so this may not be helpful, so I will include some thoughts I have about specific arguments.

Generally I do not like to call for evidence. I think the debaters should be able to explain their argument and their evidence without me reading it.


 * Kritiks**

Specificity is critical, links should have impacts and they should also be reasons why the aff cannot solve their advantages. Alternatives are usually very reactive and negative which makes it hard for them to solve affirmatives. Explaining your alternative in a positive way,i.e. what does action look like in the world of the alternative, or reasons why negativity leads to productive politics is preferable.


 * case**

Negatives often shy away from the case debate and that is a shame. I really like clever observations about why the affirmative can't solve their case and can be persuaded that there is little to no risk of advantages


 * DAs/CPs**

I often think debaters miss opportunities to write clever counterplans that could solve large portions of the aff while avoiding a big disad. Like with critical debate, specificity is the gold standard.

While I have read affs that don't defend the topic instrumentality, I will vote on framework. Many people are getting bored of these debates but I find that they can be really educational. The negative should frame it more of a question of the method of the 1ac, rather than an argument about abuse
 * Framework**


 * also please be clear. clarity > speed**