Saxe,+Nathaniel

Short Version

I debated 4 years at The Meadows School in Las Vegas Nevada and I now debate at UNLV as a freshman.

I honestly can’t pinpoint an argument type I dislike. I went for a **decent spectrum of arguments** in high school.

That being said, please don’t waste my time. I have better things to do than watch you make the other team freak out. This doesn’t mean you can’t run a bizarre or unconventional argument. Itjust **has to be an argument.**


 * Flowing is** the **most important** thing that determines your speaker points. I will notice if you are not flowing.

Long Version:


 * T:** I usually default to an **offense defense** paradigm. I would rather you **impact standards** in the block than make a bunch of them. Think of the standards as disadvantage impacts and how you would weigh those. This also applies to reasonability. If you are going for reasonability, you need to explain to me what that means for the rest of the T debate, or it is useless. **Be clear when extending interpretations.** If you are not, it could cost you the debate.


 * Disadvantages:** My beliefs are pretty standard with most other judges on these**.** I am willing to **vote on 0 risk** of a disadvantage if there is a reason why no links apply. **Make turns the case arguments** when you are negative and **answer them** when you are affirmative. I probably give more weight to these than most judges. An even better route would be Disad solves the case.


 * Counterplans:** I will explain my theoretical preferences below. **Quantifying solvency deficit versus the net benefit** of the disadvantage will win rounds in front of me. Impacting solvency deficits needs to happen early. Multiple permutations are fine. Please **don’t make seven permutations in 3 seconds**, because I will discount the ones I don’t flow. If you are explaining a permutation is severance or intrinsic, you **need to impact severance and intrinsicness**. When going for a permutation, you need to explain how it avoids or captures the net benefit. If you cant articulate a clear reason why this is true, then I won’t feel bad dropping you even if the other team didn’t answer your permutation.

Kritiks: I ran kritiks in high school and enjoyed them. I will enjoy your speeches more if your argument is very specific to the affirmative. I will not be your friend with speaker points or argument evaluation if you give the same generic Nietzsche 2NC we have all heard a million times. **The debaters should impact framework**, but in the instance that it is not impacted, I **default to framework meaning that the Kritik gets a link.** I can be convinced that the entire affirmative magically disappears as well. I would rather hear links about specific phrases in the other teams evidence than 10 link cards. When doing impact calculus, explain an impact that makes sense. Don’t just say everyone inevitably kills everything all the time. Make specific impacts and weigh them against the other team. **Don’t let the other team get away with a nebulous alternative** that can solve everything all the time. This doesn’t mean you should pull out your 10 point utopian fiat bad block. Make them stick to some action, or in most cases in action, and impact turn it. Permutations need to be explained in the context of the affirmative. They also need to have net benefits. It would behoove you to explain how you remedy the links as well.

Theory: Most of what I said on the topicality section applies here. Impact your standards and use interpretations. I usually think that conditionality is good. I wouldn’t run more than 2 conditional advocacies. This is just because I haven’t heard a good offensive reason about why it is justified. I probably sway in the direction of the following being bad: Consult, Conditions, Commissions, and Delay. I like PICS that are competitive and have a solvency advocate. If it does not, I am easily convinced that they should not be allowed. Conditionality is a reason to reject the team. Most other theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument. You have to say “reject the argument” at the very least.

Paperless: **I don’t take prep for jumping speeches.** Don’t make me regret this. If you do, 25.

Clarity and speed: I will evaluate what you communicate to me. You can go fast as long as I know what you are saying.