Groenke,+Nick

My history: I debated 4 years of Policy Debate at Bloomington Jefferson High School in Minnesota. I coach (mostly novice) policy at Bloomington in MN.

1) Racist rhetoric will be reflected in speaker points. Not everything is debatable in debate, and racism is one of those things. I've heard a lot of racist arguments this year in the novice division and that I why I have this listed.

2) Racist rhetoric will be reflected in speaker points. Not everything is debatable in debate, and racism is one of those things. I've heard a lot of racist arguments this year in the novice division and that I why I have this listed.

3) For topicality to be a voter the negative needs to win that their interpretation is the only valid interp/that the aff's interp is awful and that the affirmative violates their interpretation. That is, it isn't enough for the neg to have a better interp; the aff's interp has to be unacceptable. I default to T being a voter unless the aff makes an argument that it is not a voter. In that case I evaluate that argument and any neg responses.

4) On theory, I am not going to call blocks and read them. Viable theory needs to explain the interpretation, the standards, the violation, the impact, and the remedy. It helps if these parts are clearly articulated and labeled. Two blocks read against each other at speed will probably result in a wash.

5) I prefer probability over magnitude unless the argument is made that magnitude is more important.

6) I really need the role of the ballot explained. For example, to win a reps K a negative needs to win that the affirmative should lose because of their reps. Frequently people will debate the cap k in front of me without explaining how the ballot is supposed to work. If the ballot defaults to policymaking, it usually turns out that a non-unique K with a bad alt won't win against an aff that is better than the status quo. I can't think off hand of a way to think of the ballot that would lead to a win for the cap k.