Pereda,+Nick

*Note- my most updated wiki is on tabroom __**Topic note**__

I have not done a substantial amount of work for this topic by any definition and thus my topic knowledge is limited. I also don't know what community norms are regarding topicality etc., so don't come into the round presuming I know what super long acronyms that are topic specific mean.

__**Preface**__

Yes I want to be on the email chain. nickspereda@gmail.com.

-Affiliations: Grapevine High school 13-17, Trinity University 17-21, Brophy 17-18

-Sending/flashing isn't prep unless it's egregious

-Don't steal prep

-An argument is claim and warrant minimum, tagline extensions are never sufficient even if they have conceded the argument.

-BE NICE TO EACH OTHER. There's a fine line between between being heated and passionate and being unnecessarily mean or rude. I will not tolerate the latter. Debate is the best activity I've been lucky enough to be apart of and disrespecting your partner or opponent can ruin someone's ability to enjoy it. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, etc.

__**Summary**__

You're probably here because I'm about to judge you. The short version of my philosophy is that I was a fairly flex debater and have probably either read or encountered an argument at least similar to what you're about to read, so you do you and I will try to judge you with as little argumentative biases as possible. That being said, I am a human and I do have preferences. I think the aff should probably read a plan text and defend it. At worst, I think the aff should have a strong resolutional basis. Probably related to that, I'm likely not the greatest judge for super K-oriented strategies. Cap/psycho etc > Identity > Pomo. This is not to say I do not enjoy these debates or won't vote for them, but rather that you will have to do more work explaining the theory and its relationship to the aff than average.

__**Stylistic things:**__

**Speed:**

I'm good with it but don't sacrifice clarity for speed. Don't speed through theory arguments, I usually flow on paper so give me pen time. I typically won't be reading the speech doc during your speech so if you're unclear to the point where it’s impossible to understand you then I’ll be sad :(

**Tech vs. Truth:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I think it's probably always good to be on the side of truth but I default to tech. Truth before tech doesn't make any sense to me because if debate was only a question of truth then speech times don't make any sense. The exception to this rule is topicality, because being factually correct about an argument is probably better for the community and for education than technically winning every arg (this doesn't mean you can just concede a bunch of stuff on T and still win though).

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Evidence vs. Spin:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I place a high premium on research and reward teams for both reading good cards and understanding them on a level that allows in depth extrapolation. Cards are just support for larger arguments, meaning that I will default to your explanation of an argument or card and won't read evidence unless there is controversy as to its quality, or I feel like I need to for the decision. __Quality>quantity__

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**CX**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Use this time effectively. CX is a great time to generate offense and make strategic choices. Important interactions are often under-utilized in speeches and I honestly don't really understand why. This is where you can typically gain a lot of ethos as well so please make it worth my time.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">__**General arguments:**__

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Topicality:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Massively under-utilized. Limits and ground aren't impacts, they're internal links to things like education, fairness, research models, etc. I default to competing interpretations but reasonability is a theoretically winnable argument. This is because I think that competing interps is inherently a race to the top because teams have a competitive incentive to defend an interpretation of the topic that is actually good, and the only reasons I've seen for reasonability being good are defensive at best.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I probably won't vote on RVI's and if you go for them I also won't feel inclined to give you high speaks.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">T is a question of what the topic should look like which means that in round abuse matters much less than potential abuse and is also a reason why T comes before theory. I think "setting a precedent" specifically is not a good argument nor is it an impact; if you win your interp is better for debate then it doesn't matter what the community norm is regarding what the topic should look like. I typically find myself being more persuaded by arguments surrounding the question of limits because it likely defines what the rest of the topic (read ground) will look like. I don't think limited topics are inherently better though because that also begs the question about what types of affs and neg ground are available under that more limited interpretation.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**DA:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">These are lit. Aff specific DAs will be rewarded and I'll have a lower threshold for them as opposed to more generic topic DAs. I go for Ptix a lot but don’t force it if there isn’t a good scenario. There is such thing as zero risk and I think the link usually controls the direction of uniqueness. Do a lot of turns case analysis that's actually contextualized to the internal links of the 1AC.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**CP:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Go for them. Smart advantage counterplans that solve a sufficient amount of the internal links of the aff are fantastic. I love creative/innovative advantage counter plans as I went for quite a lot of them in high school. I like process and consult etc. counter plans much less, but if the aff doesn't have a defense of why now is key or why their exact process is key I can sympathize with a 2NR exploiting strategic flaws.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I won't kick the CP unless you tell me to but I do think judge kicks are a thing absent a theoretical reason not to do it in the specific round. Each plank is its own conditional world unless you defend every one.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Ks:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I've gone for them a bit. I don't think these are extremely different from CP+DA debates insofar as you should try to win that the alt solves most of case and the impacts outweigh what it doesn't. I think the aff probably gets to weigh their impacts and Ks of fiat or generic politics probably aren't good strategic choices. That being said, I will vote on pretty much anything given sufficient explanation and warranted analysis.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I also have a much higher threshold for the link portion of the debate than I feel most other judges do so be wary. Reject alts are garbage. I will also be honest and say that I have a higher threshold for the permutation than I think most other policy oriented judges do. By that I mean that you should explain exactly what the world of the perm looks like and how it specifically resolves the links. Asserting that it resolves shitty links of omission is probably true, but you should at least do a little explanation, and more specific links obviously should have more explanation.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">You should also still do line by line and in depth analysis. If I don't feel like I can explain your K to someone else by the end of the round then I will not feel comfortable voting for you. Root cause arguments are defensive at best and you have to win reverse-causal to garner offense off of it which is usually difficult.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Links of omission aren't arguments and State links aren't much better (however I am more sympathetic to State/law bad than I was before the election for obvious reasons).

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**"Non-traditional" and performance affs:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I prefer debates focused around a plan, but I'm fine with these affs and read them earlier on in my career. I think framework is generally a persuasive argument so if you do read this style of aff, you should have an extremely cohesive and contextual strategy to win the "clash of civs" debates. I don't think role of the ballot args are executed very well and if that is the entirety of the 2AR I will be sad. The aff should at a minimum be related to the topic. You should also have some clear advocacy statement, and 2AC shifts justify a lot of framework arguments so if you plan on reading a k-aff, read it as transparently as possible. As a disclaimer, I have not judged a substantial amount of these debates and can't say which side I tend to fall on in regards to the K-aff vs. FW debate, but my more specific opinion is below.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**FW vs. K Affs:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">My opinion of framework has changed many times throughout my career but I do think that it's probably the best strategy against K affs. I think there should be some predictable point of stasis, and I also think it should probably be the USFG.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">FW should be question of the form of debate as apposed to its content if the two can be distinguished, meaning I think that a topical version of the aff is probably necessary. Reasons why topical versions of the aff aren't perfect or particularly good also prove that they're debatable which is a good thing. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I think procedural fairness is actually really good if you win that debate is a game and I probably have a lower threshold for it than the community norm. Other than that limits is the only other impact I think is consistently good enough to give 2NRs on. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">When teams reading a k-aff also make counter-interps on FW, I think that also means they shouldn't get access to a lot of their "limits/fairness bad" arguments because their interp has a vision of the topic that presumably has some limit etc. I will not however, make that argument for you.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">As I said above, I think debate is a game but you still have to win that it is.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Case debate:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Do it more. A good negative strategy should include a robust case debate unless you're absolutely sure the counter-plan or K solve a large portion of the aff's internal links. I **love** nuanced straight turn debates and will reward very well thought out strategies and research. There is also such thing as 0 risk of the aff.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I also love impact turn debates (judging ddev debates is ideal to me if that means anything to you)- I will also rewards blocks that punish shitty 2AC add-ons.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Don't break a new aff for the sake of breaking a new aff unless you know it well enough to answer basic questions about the assumptions and internal links of the aff.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Theory:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Usually a reason to reject the argument not the team. 3 conditional advocacies are probably ok but more is definitely pushing it. Consult, delay, and add a condition counter-plans are sketchy. Each conditional conditional plank is its own conditional world unless you will defend all of them which means that a 5 plank counterplan gives the 2NR 5 factorial conditional worlds for example.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">__**Speaker points**__

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">They're entirely subjective. That being said, I do understand that context (tournament size, quality, etc.) should influence my scale. That means that I will likely give you better speaks at a local than your average octo-bid tournament. On the question of style vs. arguments I think I give higher speaks to people that are subjectively better speakers (obviously) but I also do place emphasis on argument quality. This means if you are a fantastic speaker but make terrible arguments you probably won't get high points. My rough scale is as follows:

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">24-26.9: You did something offensive

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">27-27.4: There were some fairly big mistakes that need to be fixed either stylistically or strategically

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">27.5-28: There were mistakes but not enough to make the round impossible to win

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">28.1-28.5: Average, you made mistakes but nothing egregious

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">28.6-28.8: Good arguments and style, I think you should break

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">28.9-29.3: Excellent, I think you should get a speaker award and win a few elim rounds

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">29.4-29.9: You should be the top speaker and win the tournament

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">30: You are possibly the best debater I've ever seen. This probably won't happen.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The community average seems to roughly be a 28.4 from what I can tell, so I will try to hover around there.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you have any questions feel free to ask or email me.