Falba,+Nicholas

I did LD nationally and locally sophomore through senior year, 2007-2010, and qualified to the TOC in 2010. I competed for Jesuit High School in New Orleans.

The short version:

Speed- yes, be clear Theory- competing interpretations Kritiks/critical affs- not a fan, if they're confusing. Could be interesting if not dense. Speaks- judged based on strategy; avg=28.5 Just make the decision easy for me by being COMPARATIVE. Don't just talk about why your position is so awesome without comparing it to your opponent's offense. Evidence comparison and weighing make the round really simple. Do this=higher speaks.

The long version:

The easiest rounds to evaluate are the ones which collapse into a utilitarian/net benefits framework, while each side compares evidence and weighs their specific impacts. These are my favorite debates as a debater, and probably as a judge. I do enjoy a good framework debate though, so don't feel compelled to weigh impacts, or narrow the impacts that can be weighed with a more specific standard.

Theory is cool and I view it as an issue of competing interpretations. That being said, I expect you to answer a theory shell with a counter-interpretaion as well as with responses to theory. I am open to RVIs and will listen to reasons as to why and why they're not legitimate, if this issue comes up, though I'm not biased to either side.

DAs, plans, counterplans, and all the other policyesque arguments are fine. I ran some myself back in the day.

Critical advocacies and Kritiks are a different matter. I HATE critical moral philosophy and I HATE dense literature (mostly because I don't get it). I don't have any background about any of the really dense common critical authors, so when you speed through dense bs, I probably don't have any idea what you're talking about. In a case where someone is speeding through 50 cards of what sounds like nonsensical words that you've never heard before, I am very open to "if you don't understand it, don't vote on it" arguments. In short, don't run critical advocacies in front of me unless they're easy to understand.

Weighing. DO IT. DO IT. DO IT. You've read this a million times in the other paradigms you had to go through when doing prefs, but seriously it makes life for the judge easier and your lives better when you do it. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, you're so far behind in the debate already. Weighing doesn't just mean saying why your nuke war impact is so huge, it also means comparing your impact to the impact of your opponent. Jargon like, I outweigh on magnitude means nothing. You must explain to me how many more people you're saving than your opponent for it to mean something. Comparison (i.e. a part of weighing) requires a reference to two things not just to yours. If neither of you weigh or compare evidence (another really really helpful thing), you leave it to me to do it for you, and if you do that, it's no fun for anyone.

Speed. I'm not the best flower in the world, but I can handle speed for the most part. There are some people who think they're really clear when they're really not, and if this is you, then you're in luck, because I'll yell clear as many times as it takes for you to speak so that I can understand what you're saying.

Speaks: I assign speaks based on strategy, not performance. Some people make really good strategic decisions but don't make it far in tournaments because they're presence wasn't that assertive or domineering, and thus lose speaks. I average a 28.5, and go up and down based on your strategy, so don't worry too too much about projecting a presence, although subconsciously, that probably will help you.

I will call for any evidence on issues I feel unresolved or for issues of importance in the debate. Don't be a huge ass to your opponent and have a good debate. Ask me anything you like if you need something clarified.