Kwolek,+Nick

I debated for three years at Northrop High School in Indiana, two years in PF, one year in LD. I made top 20 in PF at nationals, and won LD at state my senior year. I also competed in FX and Imp.
 * Background:**

In college, I debated for Purdue University, competing in Parli around the midwest. We primarily did policy style in our parli rounds, and also supported an NFA LD squad. I didn't compete in LD but did help my team prep. I also competed in limited prep events, and some Persua.

As a coach, i worked for a two years with Northrop, and the last three at West Lafayette High School. I run the policy debate squad at West Lafayette.

Finally, I'm an electrical engineer by trade, and I work in the aerospace sector. When you start making claims about technology or science, I will hold you to a higher standard, especially if it is an area I have worked in. I won't straight up intervene (unless it is truly egregious), but I'll make it clear on the ballot when there is a problem, and it will take a lot less in terms of refutation from the other team if you are playing fast and loose with science


 * CX**
 * General:**

Generally speaking, I'm going to evaluate the round from a policymaker framework. I will evaluate the Aff plan against the status quo or a competitive counterplan, and vote for whatever is the best policy. Given a strong argument, I can be persuaded to evaluate the round differently, but you're going to have to do a fair bit of work to get there.

I can flow speed, but make sure you're clear when you do go fast, especially the tags. A slight pause of change in intonation when you start a new tag will make it much easier for me to flow your speech and get arguments where you want them. Roadmaps are great, and for me they're off time, as long as they don't get ridiculously long.

Additionally, I like specific debate. By that I mean the more you can specifically engage the arguments as put forth by your opponent, the better. If that means you have some really specific on case stuff, cool. If that means a well thought out DA/CP combo that is really responsive to the specific case, great. I'm not a fan of Tics, but I know people will run it. Same with generic Ks or CPs. The more you specifically respond to the case at hand, the better.


 * T:**

I'll vote on T, though I prefer it not be purely a time suck issue. Using T strategically to secure links to DAs is a great strategy, and is also a great way to prove a T violation. I generally think competing interp is a good way to start the debate on T, tell me why your interp of the resolution is better. I can be persuaded that the Aff doesn't have to 100% win the T (reasonability), if you can do the work to show your interp isn't terrible, but it will take some work. In terms of voting issue, I think evaluating T as a jurisdiction issue tends to make for a clearer debate, but if you choose to go for education or abuse, I'll evaluate the arguments.


 * Theory:**

I generally evaluate Theory in the same way I evaluate T, except for the fact that it's not a jurisdictional issue, it's definitely abuse or education. The clearer and tighter you can make the interp for the theory position, the better. In round abuse is awesome in terms of clearly showing why the theory position is a voting issue. Potential abuse could be enough, but it would need to be something relatively large to win on just potential abuse.


 * CPs:**

Good CP debate is awesome. A competitive CP that captures a good chunk of case along with a relatively specific net benefit (ie DA) is going to make for an awesome round to judge. If your strat is Delay CP plus Tics, I will be much less thrilled. The more the CP can contrast itself with the plan, and create a distinct advocacy, the better. Perms are almost always a test of competition, not a new aff advocacy. In terms of CP status, I think dispositional (Neg can go for the 1 CP or squo) is probably fair in the vast majority of cases, but that can be debated in round if relevant.


 * Ks:**

I'll start off by saying that I am not up on the literature at all. If you are running a K, you need to take the time to explain it to me. This probably means slowing down a bit, cause I won't catch the intricacies of your author's warrants if you are going full speed. A K must have an Alt, and you need to give me a clear idea of how it functions. Is it competitive in a post fiat world with the plan? Is it an issue of advocacy when I sign my ballot? Tell me what exactly you think happens when I vote neg on the K, and why that is sufficient to justify the neg ballot. An alt with a little more meat than just "Reject the Case" will go along way for you in a K debate. Impact calc in terms of how the K functions in the world of the plan is also helpful. Additionally, the more specific you can make the link, the better. Something along the lines of "They don't reform the USFG, so they link to X' is not a great link. If you can show me why the specific action of the plan links to the K, it will help you a lot on the K debate.