Denissen,+Nick

Nick Denissen

Nick Denissen - Baylor University - Years Judging College: First

I’ll preface all this by saying this is my first year out and my philosophy is subject to change, I’ll do my best to keep it updated as the year goes on if necessary.

General: All my predispositions are debatable. I feel the influence of my preferences on the decision is much much less than the variance in the debaters’ ability to argue different positions. What does that mean? Do what you do well, and tell me why that means you should win, conforming to my preferences should be well down your list of strategic considerations when preparing for the round. I like debate, and tend to feel that arguments are arguments. I like T debates, framework debates, politics debates, PIC debates, theory debates, K debates, consult debates, whatever you want, just do it well. I work very hard flowing and deciding rounds (note: this is different than doing a lot of work FOR teams) and as long as you put the effort into developing a position I will put effort into evaluating it.

Argument Specifics: T/Procedurals – by default I’ll evaluate a T debate on competing interpretations, but can be convinced otherwise. However, the threshold for “zero-risk of offense” is much lower on T than on the substantive debate. Whereas on a DA it can be tough to win there is no risk of the link (absent offense), I find the similar arguments on T (“always a risk our interp is better”) to not be as persuasive. Procedurals are the same way, if you genuinely think Aspec is a good argument and are willing to invest the intellectual effort into making it a complete and well developed argument, I’m more than happy to listen, but sprinkling cheap shots all over the flow is not the best idea.

CP – one dispo/conditional CP is probably legit, multiple conditional CPs is probably not but I can be convinced either way. Often these theory debates put judges in a bad spot of having to do work for one team or the other in order to make it a coherent, fully developed argument. If you plan on going for theory, treat it like a T debate, have an interpretation, prove there is real offense to your interpretation. If going for theory is your best strat in the 2ar, make it a substantial portion of the 2ar. Good points will be given for recognizing what your best strategic option is, even if you can’t pull it off. Consultation CPs are questionably legit but the previous sentences apply, the theory debate is usually lacking. Good, specific, theory arguments (i.e. not just PICS bad) with interpretations and offense will make this debate easier to win.

K/Framework – I enjoy K debates and I appreciate their strategic value. That being said, I think you ought to be well prepared to defend their theoretical legitimacy. Framework debate is important. That doesn’t necessarily mean K’s=cheating is a round winner (though it can be), but more generally someone has to define the role of the judge in the round. I honestly don’t know how to evaluate a round where one team only argues as if we are playing a hypothetical game where the plan passes and the other team only argues as if that is irrelevant. By default I’ll try to evaluate both sets of impacts but you may not like the outcome. Secondly, I’m likely not an expert on your particular variety of criticism. I’ll never throw up my hands and say “screw it, I don’t understand what you’re talking about” and vote the other way, I will try my best to understand, but the best way to help me understand is to explain it in debate-y terms, what is the link/impact/alt/philosophical basis and more often then not I’ll be on board.

Performance – I’m more than happy to listen to this style of debate, my only concern is they sometimes lack clash. I understand that often the traditional notion of debate “theory” is part of what is being critiqued, and as such a theoretical defense of what you are doing is missing the point. However, be sure to explain why what you do clashes with what the other team does, and why they ought to have to defend the stuff you clash with. You may feel you aren’t responsible for jargon-y things like ground and limits, but unless convinced otherwise I need to understand on a fundamental level what it is you are arguing and more importantly why the other team has to defend it. In simpler terms, if the other team stands up and says “We agree” and sits down, why should you win the round? Like on a K debate, make sure to define my role in the round. That being said, if you are debating against performance feel free to go for traditional theory and explain why they ought to have to answer it.

I will take all the time necessary to read cards after the round, but I don’t like it. I will call for evidence if there is a) competing claims over the content of a card or b) if I don’t understand what is going on. Both of those things ought to be resolved by the debaters so me reading ev isn’t good for anyone.

Last, it’s a game, have fun, if you aren’t having fun, then I won’t be having fun and then what’s the point?