Dahm,+Nolan

West Des Moines Valley High School – Class of 2015 Wake Forest University – Class of 2019; Debating nddahm@gmail.com
 * Nolan Dahm**

I like doing debate so please don’t make me not like doing debate – up to you to decide how to do that I go for the K in 95% of rounds I’m a 2N but I was also a 2A for a while Favorite Judge: Mike Baxter-Kauf Most Frequent 2NR choice: Queer Pessimism/Edelman Call me Nolan. My name is not “judge,” “the judge,” “him,” etc.
 * Intro**

Here is where I tell you the obligatory thing about how these things aren’t set in stone and that if you win the debate I will vote for you. For those of you that saw “I go for the K” and didn’t already strike me, Goddess bless you.
 * Argumentative Preferences **


 * Topicality vs. Policy Affs** – yeah go for it. I think that limits debates become infinitely regressive a lot and over-limiting is a thing. I guess that means I default to reasonability to some degree but obviously what constitutes reasonable is based in the literature. It’s your job to tell me what reasonable is and why you are that/the other team isn’t that.


 * Disads** -
 * (I would like to think) that I am a logical person. If you win the aff is worse than the status quo then obviously I will vote negative. I really could not care less about whether UQ controls the link or the other way around. It’s your job to tell me those things.
 * Please refrain from reading thousands of cards at me in the 2NC. If you want to share your great evidence with me, friend me on Facebook and send me the link. I would love to chat with you about it but in the round please tell me why things matter.
 * Spin > Evidence – I care more about your explanation of arguments than if your evidence is exactly what you are saying. Obviously you shouldn’t blatantly contradict what your authors are saying but some degree of interpretation or extrapolation is both inevitable and means you are actually thinking!


 * Politics Disads** –
 * ugh sure…. @1NRs look up from your computer and maybe skip the 9 th and 10 th cards in your “2NC UQ – Top Level” section and look at me and explain your DA.
 * Affs – don’t worry if you don’t have amazing cards. Analytics about the political climate are persuasive and you are probably just as qualified as some of the shitty cites that the neg cut their cards from


 * Critiques/Kritiks/Ks/Qritikes/Kritiques** –
 * I would love to hear it. Win framework and you will win the debate most of the time. Your reps Ks are really not persuasive and affs probably can “sever” their reps because your evidence probably blows. Affs should win the perm debate against just about every K and links rarely actually prove the perm doesn’t solve they just prove the aff may have done something bad that the perm can probably solve back. Negs need to go another step and tell me why the links implicate the permutation debate.
 * Sweeping ontological claims are either not true or essentialist (Wilderson, Edelman, etc.). Please do not make social death claims if you do not experience whatever identity your authors happen to be talking about. I get quite uncomfortable listening to 4 white people arguing about the ontological status of black bodies and your speaker points will reflect that.
 * People that say “I won’t vote on morally reprehensible arguments” in this section are idiots. Obviously I won’t either but it’s your job to tell me what is and isn’t morally reprehensible. Things like “racism good” are obviously not easy to win and I will tank your speaks but if the other team can’t answer your argument then that’s their problem not mine.
 * If your K has “contentions” then reevaluate your life choices, please. See the case debate portion for other things you could spend your time on
 * Psychoanalysis is not an argument.


 * Theory** –
 * I don’t lean any particular direction.
 * Process CPs are really terrible for debate in general. Here’s the bright-line: If you could’ve read your counterplan on last year’s topic, it’s probably illegit! (NEPA CP, Delay, etc.)
 * Indifferent on condo – I think whether it’s bad or good depends on what condo you are reading. If you’ve got some really specific shit for the aff, read it. If you are being an asshole, don’t! If you are thinking, “meh I’m not being a TOTAL asshole!,” yes you are. Don’t do it
 * PICs – awesome if they are actually about the aff and have a solvency advocate. PICs out of very specific geographical locations don’t make a lick of sense to me. Floating PIKs probably aren’t as hawt.
 * Other Stuff – I don’t really care tbh


 * Framework** –
 * “There are really 2 different arguments that people lump under the tag “framework.” One is a question of how we should think in response to a given question: these are defenses of pragmatism, realism, empiricism, etc. These are legitimate questions which are a focus of any intelligent response to a criticism. The other is “they ran an argument with big words so we should get to not answer it and still win.” I hate this argument, like whoa, do I hate this argument. Don’t get me wrong, I vote for it, but I hate doing it and the threshold for rejecting it is pretty low. You are way better off answering the thesis of the argument and defending your approach to whatever the question is (YOUR epistemology, YOUR ontology, etc.)” – Mike Baxter-Kauf
 * “You read a topical version last round” or “you have a wiki which proves you think preparation is good” is not an argument and when you make that argument you will be met with a dramatic eye roll


 * Case Debate** –
 * Policy Teams – read your DAs on case, off case, I don’t care. Affs should recognize that stuff and know where to spend their time. “Try or Die” is not an answer to every piece of case defense that is read on the case debate. I like impact turns. Most of them are really not true (besides dedev/heg bad) but they are still fun if you are good at them. Internal link turns/link turns are good if executed well. They are hard to win because you are trying to out-debate a team about their own aff which can put you at a disadvantage from the start but they are strategic if done well
 * K teams – YES YES YES. Read some specific case turns, impact defense, K links, etc. All of those can be proof of your SPF arguments, turns case args, etc. and also means that 2ACs have to answer more arguments. I read 1 off K for my entire senior year and we read 3 cards (2ish minutes) on the K and then went to the case debate. If done well it can be devastating especially for those of us who are not as fast


 * Speaking** –
 * do what you do and do it well. If I can tell you are enjoying yourself then I will like you more and if I like you more I will be more willing to vote your way in close debates. I know you and your computer have been through a lot together but you can bury your head in it another day. Please look at me every once in a while so I know you are a person and have not become part of your machine.
 * Don’t be boring. There’s lots of really good debaters that make me fall asleep. Tech debate is super awesome but sometimes you’ve got to step back and get out of ‘debate mode’ for like 2 seconds.
 * If the first 15 seconds is unflowable garbage then I will not like you


 * Other Things –**
 * Don’t try to connect with me on some weird personal level. A lot of people say they like references to things in their life. No thank you.
 * No prep for flashing but I’m not an idiot
 * Your no prep 2AC is not impressive. You are probably being a hubristic (is that a word?) ass. Take some time to actually write out a perm text or something
 * “Perm do Both” is not an argument and 2NCs should use that to their advantage. Please tell me the exact text of your permutation so I know what I’m actually voting on. 1ARs that extend “the perm” also are stupid considering every 2AC dumps 9 perms on the flow.
 * I hate those stone faced judges just as much as you. You will know if what you are doing makes sense or doesn’t by my face.