Ramsey,+Nick

Ramsey, Nick (Judge Philosophy)

T/Theory – I tend to err aff on T, neg on theory. I think conditionality is normally legitimate. I think it is probably an uphill battle for the aff to win “reject the team” on theory arguments on things like permutations. Neg flex is important.

Case/DAs/CPs – Awesome. These are probably my favorite kinds of debate to watch. But, your job obviously isn’t to entertain me. But if you did, I wouldn’t mind.

Critiques – Critique arguments are an important part of negative strategy, generally speaking. That said, I am not entirely unsympathetic to aff framework arguments. Critical affs are cool too, but I’m not a huge fan of nontopical affs, even when they make critical arguments. Negative critiques should win an impact that outweighs the aff. They have to solve a good amount of the aff, and win uniqueness to their impact to win.

General issues – my default way of evaluating impacts is to stack bodies. Whoever has the biggest stack loses. I’m happy to evaluate impacts in whatever framework you want me to, though. The above preferences aren’t dogma, I’m happy to evaluate any argument if you are good at arguing it. Cx is really important for speaker points. If you are funny, also, it doesn’t hurt.