Nichols,+Taylor

=**Taylor Nichols**=

I debated for four years in high school at Blue Valley High in Kansas. I just finished up my freshmen year of college debate at George Mason University.

TOPICALITY: This is always a voting issue. Simply explain your interpretation of the resolution and how debate functions better under that interpretation. Keep in mind though that if the affirmative's interpretation for debate is reasonable, a slightly better interpretation by the negative probably won't be enough to win. The negative instead needs to show how the affirmative's interpretation genuinely makes debate worse.

KRITIKS: The bulk of my experience is with policy oriented arguments. That being said, I am not averse to kritiks. If this is the style of debate you prefer and are best at, go for it. My policy background simply means that you need to do a good job explaining your argument, how the alternative functions, and the role of the ballot. I would like to see the kritik tailored to the specific case you're hitting. That means isolating ways that the affirmative uniquely links to your kritik.

THEORY: I do not want to hear a ten second ASPEC shell that you are never going to go for. If you are going to go for a theory argument it needs to be developed just like any other argument. Theory is typically a reason to reject the argument not the team, so if you plan to go for theory do a good job explaining why it's a round winner. Just be reasonable. If the negative reads just one conditional counter plan and a few disads, it's probably not the round to go for conditionality bad.

DISADS: The link level is very important when it comes to the probability of the disad. Teams that read eight new impact scenarios in the block but don't spend enough time on the link level won't do very well in front of me. This does not mean the other parts of the disad aren't important though. The more non-unique a disadvantage is the stronger the link has to be. When it comes to the impact level I want to hear an explanation of how the impact interacts with the rest of the debate and why it outweighs. Probability is key.

COUNTER PLANS: I'm not a fan of consultation counter plans or any sort of delay counter plan. International fiat is probably also going to be hard for you to justify. Otherwise just keep it reasonable. Simply do a good job explaining why your policy option solves better and how it gains access to whatever net benefit you go for.

OTHER: I do not think that arguments only matter if they can be considered offense. Good defensive take outs on an advantage or disadvantage can lead me to give zero risk to that argument. It is entirely possible to win a round making only defensive arguments if they're smart and well explained. I will read evidence only if it's vital that I do so. This means that I put a big emphasis on how you compare and contrast the evidence in the round and do not like it when all that is extended is a tag line and an author name in hopes that I'll read the evidence after the round and do the analysis for you. In general make sure you are clear and slow down for the plan and counter plan texts. Dropping an argument on one specific part of a flow does not mean it's conceded if it has been answered somewhere else. In general just provide smart analysis and be nice.