Fleming,+Nathan

NO PLAN = NO BALLOT

No but actually:

I understand that judge adaptation is a thing and folks are taught to do it, but if you are a skilled policy team, please don't go for a K because you think it's what I want to see. Truthfully, I'd rather watch a well debated disad than your mediocre extension of Foucault. I love a good policy round and I see very few of them. Besides, because I see a lot less of them, the likelihood that my good mood results in higher points for you should be a tie breaker. Framework debates: the "change congress peoples' mind" DA is not going to cut it kiddos. I like theory better -- and if they drop truth testing and you say presumption, then presumption it is. I think framing debate as a game and making the aff seem like a small and insignificant feature of that game is the best way to get my ballot.

While it will have little to no effect on the outcome of your debate – I invite anyone reading this to bring me an energy drink, or carbonated water, as well as Cheetos if they are so inclined.

Hi my name is Nathan Fleming. I debated previously at C.K. McClatchy High School and went to the TOC my senior year, where my partner Eric and I went 4-3. I am a big fan of debate as an activity, and I think it has a lot of different forms that are all probably valuable in their own way. A few global things that I think need to be said for those of you who really hurry through a wiki:

1. I don’t really like conditionality bad arguments. I’m sorry, but unless you are pretty good at condo debates, have a very compelling story, or they drop it, I am probably not your judge for conditionality.

2. I don’t think framework needs an external impact – I am more than happy to vote on link turns and defense in these debates – this is especially true in debates with a big push on the theoretical parts of topicality/framework.

3. I will totally vote on zero percent risk – if defense is dropped or you are getting demolished on the details of a debate I am more than happy to presume no risk.

4. I am not the most receptive to arguments that require another debater's subject position to produce links. I believe debate is about contesting the content of the 1AC, not the race/gender/sex/ability etc of the person who said it. If making those arguments is your thing that is all good and fair, but if you want a ballot you will need a better link than that. All else aside if that sounds like to difficult of a task for you, then you probably shouldn't be reading that argument anyway because it either 1) sucks or 2) you do.

With all that in mind:

Topicality: good! I think one of the tragedies of debate is people are so busy being upset about critical affs they never realize how god-damn terribly non-topical a lot of these policy affs are! I think a compelling link and impact story in a well flushed out interpretation of the topic is one of the best possible 2NRs and I find judging and adjudicating topicality debates very fun.

Disadvantages: I feel like not a lot needs to be said here, I obviously like well debated DAs. I think my reputation for critical arguments might disincentivize a good deal of you more policy-folk from preffing me, which I believe to be a mistake. I enjoy a policy strats pretty intensely, and I would be more than happy to judge one because it is something I am relatively knowledgeable on despite popular assumptions to the contrary.

Counterplans: Theory is a nice thing for the affirmative because I think I am a little more succeptable to theory arguments against cheater counterplans. With that in mind I think I am by no means against any counterplan in particular, just be ready to defend it if you’re reading something on the more abusive end (con con). Everything is fair game – and anything you can justify doing without getting called out is more than okay with me.

Kritiks: This is probably where most of my potential as a judge is for most of you folks. My partner and I were extremely critical, and I consider myself relatively to quite well versed in nearly every popular literature field. I feel comfortable judging debates that include everything from Baudrillard and Bataille to Edelman and Wilderson, so please do whatever you think will produce the best debate. With that in mind – this stuff needs to be done well. I have a pretty high threshold for alternative explanations and I think in order to justify me voting for you I need to have a good idea of what it is I’m voting for – that goes double for kritikal affirmatives.

Theory: Good! Use it to justify severance – have an impact – I think severance perms are a reason to reject a permutation so keep that in mind and impact it out!

Case: Case debate is arguably the purest form of the activity and there is nothing more pleasing to me as a judge than witnessing it done well. I am a big fan of well-developed case debates, and I think being ahead means more than almost anything else in skewing the debate in your favor.

Framework: Despite my debating to the contrary I am not a bad judge for framework at all. I have very few true ideological opinions on debate, its purpose, or how folks ought to behave in it. With that in mind, anything is up for debate, and if you can win a better interpretation of debate, or just that their interpretation is stupid, that is more than enough for me.

Rules: debate has a few of them that I will enforce despite arguments to the contrary. These rules are as follows:

Speech Times: I don’t care how edgy you are you don’t get to change them.

Evidence: If someone asks for it, you give it to them. Ethics challenges are not my favorite thing to deal with but I am not afraid of faulting a loss because of one.

Personal Attacks: Debate is not Facebook, a court room, or a bar. If a debate devolves into accusations or personal attacks, in cross X or in argument content, that debate will not continue.

No hitting people: If I need to explain this you are probably already striking me

I won't flow what I don't understand: that means if I say clear, I mean it. This also applies to arguments and performances that are not in English. I will evaluate them if arguments are made that contextualize them, but if your 2AC overview is in German my AP course probably didn't equip me with the tools to deal with that and I won't expect the other team to either.