Aranda,+Nicholas

 I am a College Debater at Regis University. My Pronouns are His, Him, He. I work for Winning Words Debate and HOL debate in Beijing, I teach Philosophy for LD. **LD Paradigm:** Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I have a strong LD background. This is my preferred event. **General:** I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not tell me and paint the story for me I will really despise doing the work for you. **Speaks:** I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outway the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks. **Speed:** I am fine with speed. I will not yell "clear" if you are going too fast for me. Typically, nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity. **A Priori Arguments:** Please clearly, clearly, explain why you claim your argument to be Apriori in the dialectic sphere of the debate space. Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework. **Framework:** Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I am a Philosophy major. I will penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. **Theory/T:** I am fine with Theory debates. Please do not default de facto to theory as a way to win the debate. In other words, if Theory is not called for do not run it! I will listen to any theory debate and evaluate it fairly. Make the Interp and Violation very clear! I should not struggle to get your theory. If your shell is not properly constructed I will view this as a waste of my time. **RVIs:** I am generally not super susceptible to buy RVIs. But, if you clearly illustrate that your opponent is just wasting both of our time I will be open to the argument. **Disclosure:** I will not automatically vote for someone simply because their opponent did not disclose. If your opponent is reading something extremely unorthodox I will hear the argument if it is well fleshed out. **Plans/CPs:** This is fine. Do it well, do it right. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are ok. Once again, If you do it right you are fine. **K's:** Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. Please do not run K unless it is good. Uniqueness is a big one for me. I love to see something Unique if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like. Post-Modern philosophy is something I am very good at understanding (I am a post-modern scholar). I can draw the links for you. Please do not make me. If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. **Weighing and Impacts:** spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you. * I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Policy Debate:** You do you. Look down for details. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> Almost all of what I said in the LD section pertains to Policy. I will view the round through more of a policy lens if you will and will evaluate the round to the best of my ability. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**General:** I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not tell me and paint the story for me I will really despise doing the work for you. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Speaks:** I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outway the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Speed:** I am fine with speed. I will not yell "clear" if you are going too fast for me. Typically, nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity. *SIGN POST SIGN POST SIGNPOST <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Open CX:** I am fine with flex cx or open unless the tournament specifically forbids it <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Theory/T:** I am fine with Theory debates. Please do not default de facto to theory as a way to win the debate. In other words, if Theory is not called for do not run it! I will listen to any theory debate and evaluate it fairly. Make the Interp and Violation very clear! I should not struggle to get your theory. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**K's**: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. Please do not run K unless it is good. Uniqueness is a big one for me. I love to see something Unique if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like. Post-Modern philosophy is something I am very good at understanding (I am a post-modern scholar). I can draw the links for you. Please do not make me. If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Stock:** Stock debates can still be very good debates. Please sign post very clearly and draw the links for me very clearly. This is where telling me where on the flow things go is your obligation! <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**IMPACTS:** Give me a good impact calculus. If you show me they lose access to their benefits, but they still have access to their impacts, you will lose if their impacts are bigger. Impact debate is big for me in policy. THIS BEING SAID: you must warrant out your impacts well and clearly (i.e., if you claim genocide, it better make sense).

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.