Okunlola,+Nelson

Earl Warren '17 Northwestern '21 Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

I debated at Earl Warren High School and I'm was 2N at Northwestern University.

I haven't read the topic lit. Don't assume I know the acronyms or that I know what's "common sense" in regards to the topic.

Things in here apply to both policy and LD. If something is specific to one event, ill label it as such.

The stuff in here is relatively concise. That's because as a judge I'm not here to tell you how to debate, I'm just here to decide who wins based on the arguments that were presented in front of me and distribute speaker points. The long story short is do what you want, and do it well. If something isn't clear here feel free to Facebook message me, email me, or ask before the round.

=PF Paradigms Update 3/27 for TOC= - Everything in the Policy/LD section generally apply, I suggest reading that especially the TLDR/General section - I prefer faster debates over slower ones - The only hard and fast/objective rules that constrain me are those of the tournaments/whatever rule guidelines said the tournament is following. Everything else is up for debate (i.e theoretical arguments) - I don't care what you read/how you read (see not above) - I prefer faster debates over slower ones - Don't assume I've read the topic lit - I'm fine with "progressive" style arguments but if your opponents ask for clarification you better do some explaining. - I'm a computer science major, make of that what you will

=Policy/LD= - Use an email chain or speechdrop or pocketbox. Prep time ends when the speech doc has been compiled and is ready to be sent. If you say "cease prep" and aren't ready to give your speech within 30 seconds, I'm starting prep up again. Get better at compiling speech docs. - Debate can be whatever you want it to be, whether that's a game, a liberation strategy, or an activity you do just cause. - Decision Calculus = "who's winning framing" "who's winning offense under that framing" - Absent framing I'll presume util=trutil - I've read a lot of different theories/philosophies/literature bases and I don't necessarily give credence to one over another. What that means is that I'll pretty much vote on anything as long as its warranted and impacted both generally and in the context of my ballot. - Tech > Truth - Don't assume I've read your lit - I'll call for evidence judiciously
 * TLDR/General**


 * [LD]** I start my decision calculus by finding the highest layer, I'll default theoretical positions unless otherwise contested by the debaters so please tell me what layer comes first. I then figure out what the winning framework is whether its a theory voter, ROB/ROJ, standard and then whoever is winning offense on that layer gets my ballot. Of course as is everything, this isn't set in stone. If your strategy is contingent upon a different evaluative mechanism then making that clear.

- Don't do it, if you do its an L0 - If you make a false accusation, its an L0 - I think brackets are only germane for questionable language, given that the word or phrase you change is not omitted from the text.
 * Evidence Ethics**

- This changes depending on the caliber of the tournament - I see speaks as a tiebreaker for seedings and I evaluate it accordingly - General criteria: In round persona, strategy, "are you good or bad at debate" - I had a stuttering problem growing up, speech impediments won't factor into my evaluation of speaks - 29.6-30: You can win this tournament or be in late elims - 29-29.5: Better than the majority of the debaters in the pool - 28-29: You'll probably clear - 27-28: You'll probably not clear - 26-27: Lots of room for improvement - < 26: .........
 * Speaks**

"LARP": 1 K: 1 Theory: 2-3 Tricks: 4 Framework/Phil: 4
 * [LD] Pref shortcuts**

- Speed is chill but keep in mind I've never been the best at flowing - Do not start at full speed, 8/10 times I'll miss the first 3 words - Slow down considerably on tags/texts/analytics. You can speed through anything else - Some speeds are just incomprehensible for me to flow so I will yell slow and/or clear. I won't dock speaks if you're too fast for me because that's not your fault, but if you are unclear it is my jurisdiction to dock speaks. - The longer you take to adapt the angrier I get, (look at the speaker points section)
 * Speed**

- Tell me how to evaluate the round. Absent framing, I'll assume util is true and adjudicate accordingly. You don't want me to do that. - I'm not an analytic/dense phil guy. If this is what you do, don't assume I've read your lit.
 * [LD] Framework**

- Its chill
 * [LD] "LARP"**

- I need to know what your alt means/does - Don't assume I've read your lit - Make framing arguments, I don't like intervening - Go all out, but warrant your arguments/practices - I need to know what your alt means/does - I need to know what my ballot means/does
 * Kritiks**

- Its chill - Slow down on the interpretation and the standard name (Predictability, Time Skew etc) **[LD]** No one likes frivolous theory, it will make me sad and you'll be sad when you see your speaks **[LD]** 1ar theory is chill
 * Theory**
 * [LD]** If theory is your pre-meditated A strat, don't pref me
 * [LD]** I shouldn't have to default on any theory paradigms, it's your job to have that debate
 * [LD]** I'll default competing interpretations and no RVI's. All this means is that if these paradigmatic issues aren't contested in the round, that's how i'm evaluating theory.
 * [LD]** Theory does not have to be in "shell" format

- Do it well - I need to hear your interpretation - Slow down on standard name (TVA, Limits, Ground etc)
 * Topicality**
 * [LD]** this isn't policy and there are not stock issues. T is probably not an intrinsic affirmative burden. You probably need a voter.

- Warrant and defend your practice/speech act/performance - I'll be just as willing to vote for T/FW against a K aff as I am to vote for a K aff against T/FW.
 * Kritikal Affs/Performance/Micropolitical**

- It's an argument. It can sometimes be strategic, therefore if you plan on reading this do it well and defend your practice. - 1 off skep probably won't get you too far but I'll evaluate it I guess
 * [LD] Skep**

- If your A-strat is tricks then I'm not the judge for you. This is not because I have some pre-conceived bias against tricks but rather because I don't understand how they function. - If you want to read trick independent of the warning then knock yourself out, just err on the side of explanation of the utility of your argument.
 * [LD] Tricks **

- Content warnings are chill - Lay debate is chill, but I do prefer faster debates over slower ones.
 * Misc**