Nietupski,+Gery

School: Gannon University

Given my thirty years of active law practice and many years as an LD Judge, I am willing to listen to a wide variety of arguments. That being said, I have a preference for more traditional arguments. If you plan to use arguments more common in policy debate, be prepared to justify them in the debate. Critical arguments, counterplans, rebuttals and evidence need to be non-generic and debated as if you actually understand the arguments and the proofs. I can be persuaded to vote on almost any argument if it is relevant to the issue and neither shallow nor tangentially related to the arguments in the debate and the resolution. I do care about the link and especially about the shape of the arguments you wish me to choose. If I cannot determine the reason(s) why you want me to choose your position, then I won’t. I am not deterred or impressed by speed. I do expect the speaker to be clear and intelligible. I will say “clearer” to alert you to any difficulty I experience in your presentation. If I can’t understand you, I can’t support your position. I have high standards for courtesy and polite behavior in the round. I am very much put off by sarcasm, arrogance and inappropriate language. Avoid them or you will lose speaker points. In rebuttals, I am particularly interested in hearing how arguments are resolved. Comparison and weighing of positions against each other are very important. Give me reason to vote for you and explain why I should care about your position. Remember, argument is **__not__** evidence!

Gery T. Nietupski, Esq.