Nilson,+Grant

Hey All!

**General Experience:** I debated for Bellarmine College Prep on the national circuit for 4 years as a 1A/2N, graduated in 2016. During my senior year, I read a soft left affirmative (and for my other years read mostly big stick policy affirmatives), and went for anything ranging from Politics/CP to psychosecurity kritiks on the neg.

**Relevant Stuff at the Top:** I'm down with K affs/Kritiks, but I'm also willing to vote on framework. Tech > Truth. I'm decently familiar with most generic K's and DA's, but haven't had a bunch of experience on this topic, so just make sure you're slowing down and explaining to me all the different acronyms/etc.

**T:** I default to competing interpretations, but I'm willing to go with something else if someone argues it/ Make sure you're weighing impacts, and not just leaving me to decide whether or not fairness matters more than education at the end of the debate.

**Theory:** I usually default to reject the argument not the team unless you tell me explicitly so. I'm all for you going for theory, just make sure you impact your voters and explain to me why it's a reason to reject the team. Make sure you're actually giving me an interpretation of what debate looks like, and why reading multiple conditional advocacies/whatever is a reason to vote neg.

**CP:** I evaluate CP's through comparison of net benefits vs. solvency deficits. Don't just assert your solvency deficit and assume I'm going to weigh it for you. I usually lean neg on neg fiat, but I'll vote on any CP theory you throw at me. (50 State actor bad, etc, etc.) I'll judge kick at the end unless otherwise told to do so.

**K:** Read whatever you feel most comfortable with, I'm somewhat familiar with most of the generic K's that were read on the circuit during my time (Wilderson, Security, etc.) but I'm not as familiar with most of postmodern theory (Baudrillardm Deleuze, etc.) I usually evaluate K debates on framework first, then go to the rest of K proper, so make sure to be making clear your interpretation of what debates should be like, especially when you get into K vs. Plan Framework debates. (Do I weigh the plan vs. the real world representations?)

**DA:** I'm fine with all disads. Make sure you make your turns case/outweigh case stuff clear at the top, so that I know how to evaluate it at the end of the debate.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me at gnilson@gwu.edu