Roberts,+Nick+(Nicholas)

I am a product of the Juan Diego (Utah) debate team and I graduated in 2010. I was there for the beginning of the Josh Clark era and thus I share a very similar approach to debate. Here is an excerpt from his philosophy which encapsulates mine pretty well:

"Topicality: I default to competing interpretations on topicality, but can be persuaded by reasonability. Jurisdiction means nothing to me because I see jurisdiction being shaped by the questions of predictability, limits and fairness. Topicality is a voting issue. You will be hard pressed to win topicality impact turns in front of me. I generally thing that policy debate is a good thing and that a team should both have a plan and defend it. Given that, I'm not saying it's impossible to win that your no plan advocacy or your fiatless plan is preferrable, but I am saying it's an uphill battle. I like switch side debate and think that is an important part of our activity that improves activist strategies, creates a fair standard for cases, and helps with the depth part of education by investigating both sides of the topic intricately. One note to teams that are neg against an aff that is trying to cheat...make sure you adapt your framework arguments to fit the aff. Don't read..."you must have a plan" if they have a plan. If a team has a plan but doesn't defend fiat, make sure you make that your violation.

D/A’s: I thoroughly enjoy a good D/A debate.... I think the politics D/A is a guilty pleasure of the debate community, because I think that it reverts back to should/would debate... Please feel free to read D/A’s in front of me. The K of D/A seems to have become more and more common, so please be prepared to defend utilitarianism and/ or realism if you are K’ed up by the duke. (this is more coaching than judging philosophy)

Counterplans: I love a good CP that solves the case and avoids all the net benefits. There are few things better than a well researched PIC that just blind sites a team. As far as CP theory is concerned. I listen to these debates and tend to SLIGHTLY lean negative on PICS and Dispositionality, but I SLIGHTLY lead aff on Conditionality/Consult/ and International fiat arguments. Nonetheless, these have little or any affect on the way that I evaluate a debate. I also lean affirmative on multiple conditional arguments, and if you say "the k doesn't have a status...it is a gateway issue"..., please know that that is the equivalent of running your fingernails down't a chalkboard. It's not true and the argument can not be won in front of me, and will only make me mad if you try.

The K: I think that impact comparisons usually become the most important part of a kritik, and the excessive link list becomes the least of a team’s problems heading into the 2nr. You need to win that either a) you turn the case and have an external impact or b) you solve the case and have an external impact. Root cause arguments are good, but rarely address the time frame issue of case impacts. If you are going to win your magnitude comparisons, then you better do a lot to mitigate the case impacts, or the affirmative needs to not extrapolate to extinction impacts stemming from the 1ac. The other part of this debate that might be specific to debating in front of me is the question of fiat. Saying fiat is illusory to me does not mean that the case impacts go away. We’re not dumb and we know that fiat doesn’t exist, but the question of the criticism should always be whether I prefer to do the alternative in light of the threats of affirmative and their promise of solvency. No fiat does not mean the case goes away. Now that I have said that, I am willing to listen to sequencing arguments that EXPLAIN why discourse, epistemology, ontology, etc. come first.

Aff Framework arguments: I understand the necessity of the arguments, but make sure you are extending the parts of them in the 2ac and the 1ar that are germane to the debate. I’ve seen a lot of aff teams spend a lot of time extending arguments that say they only have to defend their plan, when the neg’s K links stemmed from the plan and not representations. I know a good aff framework argument is an aff’s best friend.

Conclusion: I also love to see two policy teams throw down over a deterrence or Cut and Run D/A. I still enjoy the occasional biopower debate (stress ocassional)...good luck if I'm judging you and please feel free to ask any clarifying questions. " (Josh Clark)

I just want to emphasize that positions need to be impacted in a cogent manner. I will not evaluate cursory theory shells that take a few seconds to read. Warrant every argument in the very first instance you bring it up.

The more you can boil it down in the rebuttals and deeply analyze the interaction of your position versus the case (or vice-versa), the more convincing. I've been out of debate for a while, so making things clear for me is imperative.

PAPERLESS DEBATE: This came to the fore after I finished my debate career, so I am unfamiliar with how it has affected rounds. If you can tell me if and how you will be using your technology before the round begins I would appreciate it. That being said, I will count saving ev to a flash drive as prep time, but you can stop prep while handing it to your opponent/partner.

Ask me questions. Good Luck,

Nick Roberts