Moolenijzer,+Nick

Name: Nick Moolenijzer Email: debate@moolenijzer.com Past schools: Gig Harbor High School, 2009-2011; Coppell High School, 2011-2013 Current school: Dartmouth College, 2013- Background: I debated for four years in high school and I was mostly policy focused, but I certainly enjoyed running critical arguments. I now debate for Dartmouth and am still mostly policy-oriented. However, that should not necessarily dissuade you from running whatever arguments you want: I try to intervene as little as possible. Still, there are some proclivities that may factor into my decision-making, particularly if neither team conclusively resolves the issue in another way, which I have written about below. 2013-2014 Topic: I have judged 0 rounds on this year's HS topic - keep that in mind when using acronyms, etc.

Generally I find it hard to resolve theory debates because there is often little clash and instead just a mess of jargon to sort through. As a result, theory is often best as a last resort unless there is very clear abuse. I tend to err neg on most counterplan legitimacy issues and I think that usually the neg should get two advocacies and the status quo; of course, my mind can be changed.
 * Theory**

Generally, the negative should conclusively prove that the aff's interpretation of the resolution is unreasonably bad, not just that the negative interpretation is marginally better. If both are alright, but the neg's is a little bit better, I don't see that as a reason the aff is necessarily not topical. The impacts of topicality should be weighed like any other impact. The biggest impact to T for me is limits; it seems that ground, fairness, bright lines, and whatever else all stem from having a defined limit on the topic.
 * Topicality**

Very broadly, I prefer judging debates in which the aff reads a plan. This does not mean I won't vote for a team that doesn't read a plan - indeed, I generally feel that most framework debates are done comparatively better by the aff (likely because they debate it more often) and I am less likely to vote on framework if the aff is at least related to the topic. However, my gut reaction is that a plan is necessary for a good debate to take place and I generally don't think framework is genocidal, fascist, or anti-educational. I also do not understand criticisms of roleplaying: the debaters aren't pretending to be congresspeople, no one is pretending the plan will actually pass, and the judge certainly isn't pretending to be a congressperson. Clearly fiat is illusory, but that doesn't matter: the judge is voting about whether or not the plan is a good idea. Regardless, if the neg has another strategy other than framework, I would rather hear that than poorly executed framework arguments. Critical affs with a plan are awesome.
 * Framework/critical affs**

In general, I find the inclusion of one's identity problematic for a few reasons. First, it makes it incredibly difficult to debate when arguments have suddenly become personal - how can someone negate a life experience? Similarly, deciding a debate that includes identity often ends up seeming like a personal attack or a judgement of one's worth as a person. Finally, using experience and identity as an argument is impossible to validate or falsify. Succinctly, in the words of Garrett Abelkop, " It seems so clear to me that precisely because these issues CANNOT BE DISPUTED and precisely because of their IMPORTANCE that these issues should not be what we DEBATE about; that these issues should not be the basis for determining who WINS and who LOSES." On the other hand, I place great importance on diversity in debate and I find it troublesome that there are so few black debaters, female debaters, and other underrepresented minority debaters. Therefore, I am open to ideas about how to encourage participation among underrepresented groups, yet I still firmly believe that personal identity should not be a part of the debate. If anyone would like to talk to me about this belief, why I may be wrong, or how this belief is a symptom of my privilege, please contact me. I'm very willing to email, talk on the phone, or chat at a tournament about this issue and I am open to the possibility of being wrong.
 * Identity and debate**

Love it. Use your time before the round to prepare as specific of a case debate as possible. Generic impact turns are fun too and can be an awesome strategy.
 * Case debate**

As noted above, I generally err neg on counterplan legitimacy issues, but that's not to say any and every counterplan is legitimate. That said, I love specific counterplans but also see the necessity and value of generic counterplans (XO, states, etc.). A particular strategy I enjoy watching is running a good advantage counterplan while turning other advantages.
 * Counterplans**

I'm a major fan of the politics disad, but definitely understand its many weaknesses (for instance, even if the plan is unpopular, what ev says that means Obama won't have enough political capital for x bill?). Other than that, specific disadvantages are always great, or at least specific links. Sometimes all you have is a generic, but even then, contextualizing the link in terms of the aff is really important.
 * Disads**

I'm open to almost anything you want to run as long as it's explained, impacted, and clearly articulated. I try not to let my level of understanding affect the debate, but I find that it's ultimately inevitable that I will understand some kritiks better than others (for instance, I will likely understand a Butler kritik more than Deleuze and Guattari). In general, I feel that alternatives are under-debated and I often struggle with what I am endorsing if I vote for an alternative. Additionally, the internal link between the aff being bad and the impact of the kritik often escapes the debate on both sides, which is unfortunate for both teams.
 * Kritiks**

Be funny, be nice, be clear. If funny isn't your thing, being serious is cool too. <26.5 - you did something offensive 26.5-26.9 - you made it functionally impossible to win 27-27.4 - substantial errors were made, level of preparedness was low, speaking was below average 27.5-27.9 - some errors were made, level of preparedness was average, speaking was average 28-28.4 - few errors were made, level of preparedness was above average, speaking was above average 28.5-28.9 - very few errors were made, clear strategy, level of preparedness was high, speaking was well above average 29-29.4 - almost no errors were made, clear strategy, level of preparedness was exceptional, speaking was exceptional 29.5-29.7 - almost no errors were made, clear and well executed strategy, level of preparedness was exceptional, speaking was sensational 29.8-30 - no errors were made, clear and very well executed strategy, level of preparedness was phenomenal, speaking was inspiring
 * Point scale**

Last updated: 11/17/13