Nelson,+Ian

Damien High School 2008 USC 2012

I debated for four years at Damien and went to the TOC, NDCA and NFLs (if that’s what you’re into). Tell me how to vote and I’ll generally do it. Speed is good with me, but if you aren’t clear, it’s not worth it. Make it a fun round and everyone will be happier for it – even your speaker points.


 * Kritiks **: I was a very-policy oriented debater in high school but that was because I think no one really likes to explain their K. If you dance around your explanations, I’m not going to pretend to understand it to save face. If, on the other hand, you do good impact calculus and explain in ways real people understand how the alternative solves, you’ll be fine.


 * Counterplans/DAs **: Bread and butter. The only thing I can add is that I generally compare the solvency-deficit first, and then decide risk-threshold on the net-benefit. As a result, the aff would be best served by reading add-ons and the neg can help their cause by going for at least one or two solid case arguments. And both sides NEED to do a lot of impact comparison. Anyone can find an internal-link to nuke war, the team that wins is the one that explains, in detail, why their internal-link is triggered first, or solves the other impacts, etc…
 * Topicality/Theory **: Generally not the biggest fan. If there’s obvious abuse or if it’s dropped, go for it. That being said, I really do not enjoy voting on cheap-shots. If a team drops a bad theory argument and you decide to go for it, than you better go for it all the way. Spending 15 seconds saying, “they dropped this” is not enough, you need to explain what happened and give impact calculus for your arguments. Impact calculus on topicality and theory is the most effective way to get ahead on these debates and rarely do people see the light.


 * Performance/Non-traditional debate: ** I view debate as a game with rules that should be followed. I am fine to listening to these types of arguments, but I’ll be a tough sell.