Tanner,+Nick

Nick Tanner Debated at Omaha-Westside Now I debate at Creighton University I judge and coach for Omaha-Westside Number of Rounds judged on this topic: I have judged at Greenhill, Valley, and Indianola (I can't remember the number of rounds).

I would like to preface this entire post by saying that if you argue whatever it is that you are arguing __**WELL**__ then I am more than okay with voting for it. Arguments that are debated poorly only make me think you don't know what you're talking about, and make me less likely to vote for them.

Topicality: I am normally more lenient toward the affirmative on T, but if they drop something or don't adequately answer something I am more than willing to vote on T. Arguments like "Reasonability" I tend to agree with, but that's not to say that I won't vote against it. I am not a big fan of reverse voters and have a pretty high threshold to vote on them. Just make sure you have a substantive debate on T if you want me to vote for it, I will be far more willing to err affirmative if you only have a few blips about it throughout the round.

Other Theory: If you argue any other type of theory well I will vote (or not vote) on it. I have very little preference on PICs or PECs being good or bad, I tend not to buy topical counterplans bad, but in all reality it comes down to how well you debate whatever issue you bring up. I will buy just about anything. However, I am not a fan of the framework debate, I am sick of hearing arguments for either side that aren't unique or good. So if you can, I would prefer you avoid it, but i understand it is a necessary part of some debating (in which case keep is shorter).

Kritiks: I am both familiar and a fan of kritiks and I understand them fairly well. This is not to say, however, that you can spew something from Baudrillard at me and expect me to understand it. I have read quite a bit of philosophy and I am a Philosophy major so I have a grasp of how philosophy tends to work (even if debaters do stretch things a bit) if it's an argument i have never heard before (and debaters are notorious for finding those), I won't have the best grasp on it until you explain it well to me. I don't, however, have a predisposition against any sort of philosophy or any kind of kritikal argumentation. As far as kritks of debate go I am fine with anything that you want to give me, just make sure you have a clear reason for why I should vote for you. That being said, I am also completely fine with a perfectly good politics disad or a something that ends in a nuke war, it's always good to know a new scenario of how I might die or become impoverished soon.

More or less, I am pretty relaxed in general so have fun in round, make a joke or something. I get bored easily so it's good to keep me entertained.