Dudley,+Nick

Nick Dudley (philosophy for Apple Valley 2009)

I debated at Fort Osage High School in Independence, MO. I did 3.5 years of Policy and one semester of LD. I debated for 3 years at the University of Missouri doing NPDA/NPTE Parli and NFA LD. I coached for one year at Mizzou and worked with several other teams including Drury University and The Colorado Colleges. I've been judging and coaching in the Minneapolis area for 2 years at Robbinsdale-Cooper High School. I have judged at 4 tournaments this year. I attend the University of Minnesota Law School. Policy debate is the biggest influence on my thinking/judging.

Speed - I can keep up with you if you do your part. Don't get into a race if you don't have the horsepower for it. I don't want to listen to a bunch of otherwise slow debaters suddenly try to go twice as fast as normal. That turns into an incomprehensible mess. Speed is a skill. If you don't actively practice it, don't do it in front of me. Smart and slow beats fast and stupid every day. Smart and Fast is a force to be reckoned with. But, it all has to start with Smart. One thing that really irritates me about many LD'ers is that they build a basically stream-of-consciousness case and then try to read it as fast as they can. If you go slow, then make your case however you want. If you are quick, then you can probably still make your case however you want. But if you are actually fast, then you better break down your case with several sub points and tag lines. If your case looks like an English paper, you are doing it wrong.

Framework - Tell me how to judge your round (and provide warrants why), and I will do it. Generally, I feel like LD debates should have values and criteria and such, but I am not married to the idea. On this topic, I'm not sure I would even bother. If you are going to roll with something different, tell me what you want me to do. Don't assume I know how to use your "new" methodology. Really you should tell me how to do that with a Value and Criterion as well, but I am less likely to screw it up if you don't.

Impact Analysis - The debater with the best impact analysis should win. You can lose pretty much every argument in the debate, but if you tell me why you are still winning the round, and you win your impact analysis - you will win. Debaters get too caught up in the tactical. Impact analysis is about the strategic. My ideal rebuttal would spend a short amount of time extending the necessary arguments and quickly cleaning up something on the flow ("Extend X. She says Y, but really Z because of 1 and 2"). Then get strategic. Tell me what you are winning and why it is important. Then, tell me what you are losing and why it is isn't important. Analyze Magnitude. Analyze Probability. Analyze Scope. Analyze Reversibility. Tell me why something is extra bad, or extra good. Or, come up with your own tools and analyze those. If you aren't writing my RFD in your rebuttal (meaning that, I can quote you in all or part of my RFD on the ballot), then you will only win if your opponent is as bad or worse than you.

I want to reward debaters who do good research, think strategically, and make good decisions. Give me a reason to.

If you have questions about anything else, feel free to ask before the round.