Wike,+Scott


 * My Experience** – I have been involved in debate in one form or another since 1995 and during that time I have coached TOC qualifiers, National qualifiers, teams to CFL outrounds and Nebraska state champions. Since 2008, I have largely just been assistant coaching, judging and administering the policy division of the Nebraska Debate Institute.
 * Affirmative Duties** – Ultimately, I would prefer a debate where the Affirmative actually affirms the resolution, BUT in a world where they can convince me that their criticism of the resolution, debate, etc. is a warranted approach I am more than willing to assess their arguments. Even if the Affirmative is a criticism of the specific topic advocacy, I ok with that as long as they present a stable advocacy from which clash can proceed. If I can’t figure out what I am supposed to be voting for, that is usually an indication that the Aff is not doing a good job presenting their arguments and it diminishes the quality of debate as a whole.
 * Negative Duties** – Run whatever you enjoy running as long as it is not patently offensive (racist, sexist, heterosexist, etc.). Topicality, framework, case, counterplans, kritiks, etc. are all fair game and I fully encourage you to debate to your strengths. It is not my job as a judge to tell you what to run and what not to run, it is your job to convince me to believe in your arguments.
 * Topicality** – I default to T and Theory as a priori issues, but I am willing to vote otherwise if the argument is made well. Topicality in particular should be given adequate analysis and be rooted in topics of competing interpretations, education and fairness. Dropped theory arguments do not just get my ballot because they are dropped, there needs to be clear extension and presentation of the argument from the outset not just a four word line on your block.
 * Framework** – I default to a policy-making paradigm, but I am willing to otherwise if the argument is made well. Framework should be specific to the argument made by the Aff or the Neg, not just a static block that is read generically against every critical argument that you see. Modification and clash should occur on this flow as well because it is an entryway to many of the other arguments that I would evaluate in the debate.
 * Counterplans** – I LOVE case-specific counterplans, especially when coupled with cohesive strategies. It is always an indication of a high-level of research and clash when this occurs and my favorite experiences in debate come from these kinds of rounds. That being said, if you have specific solvency evidence for your generic CP, run with it.
 * Kritiks** – I have a background in (communicative) critical theory and have done research in the area for both my master’s program and as a coach, but if you are going to run a kritik you must be able to demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter AND be able to explain it in such a way that I can follow your line of argumentation. Just rattling off catch phrases and polysyllabic words does nothing to prove that you understand the argument or that I should vote for it in the first place. Please, for the love of God, offer some kind of alternative that I can vote for.
 * Overall Round Evaluation** - I believe that debate is an educational venue that encourages critical thinking, research and speaking as lifelong skills. I also believe that the topic has intrinsic value to debate as a focus for the aforementioned skills and to expand the knowledge base of everyone involved. Failure to engage the topic is not necessarily a reason to reject the Aff/Neg but it something I will consider as part of a larger topicality/framework/theory/critical debate.
 * Other Things** – Be nice to each other. This is supposed to be fun.