Nagel,+Jeff

Dear debate community:

Jeff can't seem to work the wiki so I had to post this for him and as punishment, I'm going to mock him. Well not him as much as his appearance. Jeff is white, like really white. Fun fact - Jeff Nagel was up for the part of the lead villain in the Da Vinci Code but lost out to [|this dude] because Ron Howard thought that Jeff's whiteness was a little too scary for a PG-13 movie. Don't believe me?



Blinding, no?

Anyway, Jeff is a pretty good judge, definitely pref him and not me.

(in)Sincerely, Brad Meloche

Jeff Nagel Judge Philosophy 2014-15 Update Capital University 2010-12 Wayne State University 2012-present

Rounds on the Oceans Topic: ~30 or so


 * Tl;dr Version:**
 * I am fine with whatever argument you want to make. Arguments have claims, warrants, and impacts, but that can be accomplished equally through poetry/”performance” or whatever as it can be through a politics DA.**
 * Dropped arguments are true, but still require impacting beyond “they dropped this”.**
 * Please don’t assume I understand things without explanation. In the same note, explaining something once sufficiently is better than half explaining it 5 times on the line by line.**
 * I’ve read non topical affs the last two years as a 1A, I’ve also read a fracking good aff. I go for the K as often as I go for case turns or a disad on the Neg, so I don’t really think I have strong proclivities either way on the radical/conservative spectrum.**

I evaluate it an offense/defense paradigm. T is a voter, but I am also happy to vote for teams that win that they should not/cannot be topical.
 * Topicality:


 * Framework:**
 * It’s a strategy. It could also be violent. It’s up to the debaters to hash that out for me.**
 * As always, its evaluated through offense/defense.**

I evaluate theory in an offense/defense paradigm. 2 Condo Worlds (2 C’s or Cp +K) is probably not particularly abusive and you’re going to have a difficult time, worlds beyond that are probably an increasingly uphill battle. Yes the Neg gets Fiat – not sure where this has come from, but No Neg Fiat is probably not something you want to go for in front of me, unless its dropped or something. No other strong feelings.
 * Theory:


 * Disads:**
 * Love ‘em.**

Love ‘em. Be sure to explain competition. Don’t assume I understand the intricacies of your weird process CP.
 * CP’s:


 * Critiques:**
 * Probably the area I do the most research on, but if you’re a Heg Good team don’t be scared. Specific answers are better than generics but defend what you do.**
 * If you’re Neg, I’m an excellent K judge for you. I’ve read/am familiar with various strains of postmodernism, race, sex/gender theory, etc. BUT, do not assume I have any idea what you’re talking about with your particular strain, nor should you assume I’ve read your authors before. I am a flow centric judge, and need you to explain and apply your critique for it to be effective.**

I will not instigate charges of clipping, but if one is advanced the round ends and I will determine the winner based on a yes/no decision based on clipping. If there is clipping, the guilty party will receive the lowest speaker points possible, and if there is not the accusing party will receive the lowest points possible. I will not be following along on the speech doc, so video/audio recording will be necessary for me to determine if clipping has occurred.
 * Clipping: