Nassif,+Ryan

I'm the coach at Clear Lake High School in southeast Houston. I previously coached (and attended high school/competed at) Deer Park High School in Deer Park, TX. I've been a head coach for six years and judging for the past eleven. As a coach, I'm in theory "legit" for any and all events, but that fiction really only goes so far - my preference, and where I'm most comfortable, is in CX, while I try to avoid LD rounds at any cost.

As a CX judge, I used to consider myself a tab judge. However, I've realized as I've gotten older that I much, much prefer an actual policy round... so I guess I'm moving more into that direction. I am a flow judge and am okay with moderate to faster levels of speed; however, as an educator I feel that this is a communication event first. Because of that, I have been known to set down my pen and give debaters death stares if I can't understand them. Don't forget - if it's not on my flow, I don't vote on it. I'm not going to call for a bunch of cards if I didn't hear them. On DisAds, I can't stand generic links and am incredibly unlikely to vote on them. Make sure your internal links also follow some kind of logical train of thought and tell a coherent story. I will vote on topicality, but I have a pretty high threshold for what I consider reasonably T. I'm fine on the kritik, but I can be a bit slow sometimes understanding it (especially early in the mornings) - please make sure that you explain it, since philosophy has never been my forte. The one thing I will caution you on for the kritik is I've started to hate how debaters rush to call everything sexist/racist/ableist/insert your ist here - show me/prove it to me, don't assume I'm just gonna be okay with you calling everything your ist //de jur//. I will also say that I struggle with identity politics arguments quite a bit, as I believe that it's gone from people honestly trying to carve out their place in the debate space into something else entirely. If you truly believe in the arguments of authors like Wilderson (as opposed to running it simply because they win), then more power to you but just know I don't have the best record of voting on arguments from that sphere. I'm alright with theory, but just like with the K I can be a bit slow to understand; please do try to explain it especially if it's some esoteric craziness you're pulling out of your hat.

As an LD judge, I do not have the experience as a competitor and frequent judge that I do for CX. Do. Not. Spread. If you want to talk really fast, go find a friend and compete in CX. While I'm certainly not a lay judge when it comes to LD, understand that it's not something I'm as experienced with and I might need my hand held a little bit during some of the deeper philosophical debates. I will also very strongly caution you on this if I'm in the back of an LD round: there are few things I hate in the debate world more than the desire for LD debaters to turn this into a one person CX round, and if you offer a counter-plan or a DisAd you're going to discover it's next to impossible for me vote for you. I have a huge amount of respect for traditional LD - you know, that quaint notion of a value framework and a philosophical discussion? - and if you refuse to engage with that at all I'm almost never going to vote for you. If that's not the kind of judge you want - and I recognize that what I've written sets me far apart from the norm as far as what LD has become - then I encourage you to rank me as low as MJP will allow you. It'll make my life and yours much better.