Grau,+Nathan

About Me: Debate Experience: 5 years (ongoing) 4 years of debate at Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks, CA 1 year of debate at New York University/NY Coalition (if you still like to call it that) Rounds Judged on the Topic: 10 (At least 6 of which were performance rounds, so I'm eager to learn more about the topic) Args that I read this year frequently: Security K (on the aff and neg), some genero topic CPs, Normativity (Shlag), Heg Good K, Red Dawn/Red Spread, Impact Turns

How I View Debates:
 * Generally Speaking:** Debate is a laboratory for the exchange of ideas, calls for action, and academic discussion. You can put on your ties and pretend to be policymakers, you can do your hip hop and try being activists, or really anything in between. I do not care what you argue as long as you do so effectively and with basic courtesy towards your opponents. I've been on the awkward side of one too many patriarchy good/bad debates, I know how it feels to attempt to win reading arguments you don't agree with, and I think that you should do what you think will win you debate rounds.
 * T:** These debates take me the longest by far to resolve because lower to middle quality Topicality debates have a tendency to be devoid of impact analysis. Don't do this. I hate recreating debate rounds, and if you don't impact the debate for me, I will have to do work for one side or another in order to come to a decision. Impact comparison is equally if not more important in topicality debates than it is in DA debates, do not leave your victory up to misinterpretation by giving the other team a significant risk that their impacts are true. I default to competing interpretations, and I think that affs running to reasonability when they aren't reasonably topical under the negs interpretation is both ineffective and annoying. Defend your lack of topicality or run something more topical.


 * DA/CP:** Read them. Disads were hopefully the first thing you learned when you got into debate. Impact comparison is of course a plus. Going for a DA without case or a counterplan in the 2NR is just not a good decision, even if you're winning that the DA turns all of their impacts. The 2AR will most likely be able to leverage something against you, so for my sake please just extend impact defense or internal link takeouts if you're going for a DA in the 2NR.


 * Consult:** I really don't understand why the community is so against these counterplans, other than that they steal all of the aff and compete off a tiny net benefit. Oh, wait. I think consult CPs are somewhat illegitimate, but if the negative is better at theory, of course I will vote for them. I am not as predisposed against these counterplans as many in debate are.


 * PICs:** They're legitimate, effective, and incredibly exciting debates. Affirmatives, defend the entirety of your aff. PICs are typically textually and functionally competitive, answer them.


 * Word PICs**: All the negative asks you to defend are the words of your plan text. I am big on the functionality and importance of language. I default to Word PICs being textually and functionally competitive becuase the way we frame ideas is functional in and of itself. However, if the neg doesn't have a good theoretical defense of the Word PIC, of course I'll pull the trigger on theory. No, severence perms aren't justified. Sorry.


 * Kritiks:** I read a reps k on the aff and neg this year. A well explained kritik debate is one of my favorite debates to watch. A poorly explained K debate is more boring than watching paint dry. Negatives: If you win that reps/onto/episto comes before fiat level impacts, which you ALWAYS should be trying to do, I will not give the affirmative fiat-predicated plan-based offense. WIN THAT REPS COME FIRST and it will make my life a lot easier. Affirmatives: Have justifications for why apocalyptic rhetoric/your reps/ whatever they're critiquing is a good thing. Your aff is 8 minutes of why the way your represent the world is good and true, you should couch your impact scenarios offensively. You should also not concede reps come first. If you read a K aff, defending fiat and going for reps based offense is a dangerous strategy. I understand you don't want to get destroyed by framework every round, but maybe impact turning roleplaying would be a more effective strategy than getting outlefted by state k's. If you ask me to be a critical intellectual and not a policy judge, I have no problems with that.


 * Performance:** Go for it. In the critical theory versus race debate, I fall on the side of critical theory, but that of course doesn't mean that I won't vote for well executed performance teams. I admire your activism and am happy to hear why your issue/k of debate is the most important thing. Don't take anything for granted and EXTEND IMPACTS. Policy teams are best at that, remember, and if i have a shively exclusion impact against some loosly articulated "oppression and stuff" impact, I will default to who is better on the technical level. Compare how you envision debate to how it is, and use that comparison offensively. I will not rep out for anyone, no matter how many people are in the room to watch you, so make your voices heard without losing sight of the fact that you're here to win debates.

Questions? mng249@nyu.edu