O'Donnell,+Nick

Updated: pre-valley 2016

Debate’s a game- have fun and do what you do best. If something’s not on here, feel free to ask questions.

If you have preferred pronouns, please tell me and I will make sure to address you by them.

Debate Experience: I debated for four years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel in Wichita Kansas. I currently am in my fifth year of debate for Wichita state, where I have also been a two time NDT qualifier. I’m a philosophy and creative writing major. I’m currently an assistant coach at Kapaun.

Big Picture: I try to evaluate every argument as it is presented in the round with as little bias as possible. I do have preferences, though, so please see below for those. Do what you do best and have fun. I enjoy judging both critical and traditional rounds, and for me a good debate is determined by the quality of clash and argumentation advanced by either side, as opposed to the type of arguments ran. I have a very high threshold for voting on tricky arguments that only appear as one sentence in the block/1ar, and then suddenly become the preeminent question in the last rebuttal.

I don’t think the aff has to read a plan text, though I consistently vote on F/W and T. I default to offense/defense as a method of evaluation. Note: defense wins championships, and I will vote and have voted on zero risk of a D/A or adv. A well warranted analytic or good piece of defensive evidence can go a long way with me.

Counterplans: They can be topical as long as they’re competitive with the aff. Perm theory is always a reason to reject the arg, not the team, even if dropped. I can be persuaded that nearly any kind of competition is good in a specific context.

For the aff: explain why the nature of certain CPs justifies severance or intrinsic perms. Solvency deficits are crucial. Theory on counterplans is a reason to reject the argument, not the team

Impact turns: I love these. And by this I mean like heg bad, dedev, china war good, etc. Not wipeout and spark; those are meh…

Topicality: I really enjoy a good T debate, and treat T like a Da. I default competing interpretations and am perfectly willing to vote on T against an ‘intuitively’ topical aff. However, my threshold for voting on T varies per the quality of the argument, so you probably shouldn’t run things in front of me like colon, “should is the past tense of shall”, and “increase=actual physical increase but the aff never happens.” Substantial is “x” percent is generally arbitrary, unless its contextual. I like intelligent and precise interpretations, and the exact wording is important to me. Preciseness of plan texts is very important to me as well, and reasonability will not overcome this. Highlighting the specific ground the aff gets and the specific ground the neg loses is pretty crucial.

Kritiks: This is the area I’m most familiar with, and I’ve read a significant amount of critical literature. I probably understand what your k is saying, but don’t assume that I do. In general, I think contextualizing how the aff links to the k is very important, and a good k debate will have very specific inroads to the aff. The best K debates are when I can play back the neg speeches and tell you what the aff is. There also needs to be a good balance between knowing your argument and debate tech, so don’t just rant about theory, but by the same token don’t just read cards. Be able to explain your alt. Generally, I think the aff get’s to weigh the 1ac; but, I can be persuaded the K is a prior question. Floating Piks can be a hard sell with me, especially if it’s only one line in the block. If you very specifically explain why the PIK is different from the aff and read a card, that’s a different story, but I probably still lean a little aff. I’ve been in a lot of clash of civ debates, and as a judge I will vote for one side just as much as the other. An aff ballot will go like this: they get to weigh the aff; the impact turns or o/w the k; and I don’t really know what the alt solves.

Performance/method debates: I’m very comfortable judging these kinds of debates and am familiar with the lit. My default position is that the aff gets a perm. Links/Da’s to the other teams method will decide my ballot. For neg’s particularly: if you have an alt that solves an impact, but no/very little link, I will vote aff nearly every time.

Framework: This is not really an ideological charged argument to me; I think it’s a tool in the neg tool box. The aff should be at least tangentially related to the topic and be competitive. The farther an aff is from the topic, the easier it is for the neg to win a d/a on f/w. I think many times k affs have very nebulous/ambiguous interpretations that hurt them. T version of the aff is pretty important to me for both sides, as well as ground lists and why that ground is good/bad. For affs: 1. Have a counter interp. 2. Do impact analysis. 3. Have inroads to predictability and limits. For negs: 1. Make arguments about why they don’t get to access their aff to turn f/w. 2. Have defense to their method/theory. 3. Explain why competitive fairness o/w and turns education. I’m a bit weary on voting for perf con type arguments (like they read cap and f/w, but f/w is capitalist). Unless the neg invests a lot of time here, I probably won’t vote on it.

General Theory: The only theory argument that warrants an aff ballot is condo. Aff’s should still read theory, but use it more strategically: e.g, “this cp is illegit, so they shouldn’t get to steal aff solvency; view this debate as the net benefit vs. the aff.” I am not a fan of spec arguments, so be weary.

Speaker Points:. The best debaters have their own unique style and ethos; the more your individuality combines with your debate techne, the better your speaks will be. I really enjoy humor, and am pretty easy to make laugh. I tend to follow something like the wake table that was released a couple years ago (still not comfortable giving 28.5’s as the average, sorry):


 * 29.6-30 || The Best || Everything you could ask for as a judge and more. ||
 * 29-29.5 || Very, Very good || Did everything you could expect as a judge very, very well. ||
 * 28.6-28.9 || Very Good || Did very well as a whole, couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout. ||
 * 28.3-28.5 || Good || Better than average. Did most things well. Couple moments of brilliance combined with errors. ||
 * 28-28.2 || OK/average || Basic skills, abilities, and expectations met. But, some errors along the way. Very little to separate themselves from others. Clearly prepared, just not clearly ahead of others. ||
 * 27.5-27.9 || OK, but major errors || Tried hard, but lacked some basic skills or didn’t pay close enough attention ||
 * 27-27.4 || Needs Improvement – major errors/lacked effort || Major errors committed, effort questionable ||
 * Below 27 || Bad, and I intend for you to take it that way || Disrespected one’s opponent, the judge, or otherwise ||