Turner,+Nick

Name: Nick Turner School Affiliations: Lane Tech HS in Chicago

=
Overall, I feel the purpose of debate is to be educational and fun. I encourage humor and creativity. I find the most enjoyable and educational rounds are those where the teams run the arguments they like and really believe (whether this means a kritik on the neg or a performance on the aff) over the politics disads their coaches force them to run.======

=
It doesn't matter what the resolution is, I will evaluate any case the affirmative presents in the 1AC (whether this means a traditional policy plan, critical, performance, or even crazy cases like aliens or something). I don't assume the aff case has to fall under the resolution unless the neg reads Topicality, Theory, or Framework, only then will I default to the resolution. It is the negatives burden to respond to the aff no matter how crazy it is. Arguments are only as "stupid" or "bad" as the way they are defended in the round. That being said, I will vote on any position that is argued and impacted well. However, I do feel that whatever case the aff presents should advocate something, whether this means having plan text or and advocacy statement (i.e "My partner and I advocate for the removal of brown M&Ms"). This makes it easier for me to know what I'm voting on at the end of the round.======

As far as my thoughts go on the Roll of the Judge, a friend of mine used to say about judges he thought weren't going to like his arguments, "I don't care what he thinks. We're gonna make him sit in the back of the room and listen to what we have to say." I agree. My role is not to come into the round with predispositions on certain arguments or styles; my role is to evaluate the round based on how the arguments and evidence were articulated throughout the debate. Nothing more. I'll leave it up to the framework debate to tell me how to vote.


 * For Novices:**

Occasionally, I'll judge a novice round. Novice debate is normally sloppy, so rather than hold the high standard I do for varsity debate, I tend to evaluate these rounds from an Offense/Defense paradigm. Personally, I think listening to novice debate is hilarious. In fact, if I am judging your novice round don't take offense if I start audibly laughing. If the round is sloppy, hopefully, my enjoyment of your ridiculous novice antics makes up for the lack of coherent argumentation.

Here's an example of silly novice behavior:

1AC: Judge, how much time is left? Me: 20 seconds. 1AC: Ok, Judge, here's a summary of the case I just read to you in the previous 7 mins. I don't think you heard everything I said so let me say it again... Me: LOLOLOLOL


 * Other Stuff:**

At the end of the round, I always explain my Reason For Decision, because you as debaters deserve to know why I voted a certain way. I will do my best to provide you with examples of arguments you could have said, or how you might be able to make your position stronger for the next round.

My email is Turner138@hotmail.com

I encourage teams to ask questions. I am always willing to help a team write blocks or explain arguments, because again, debate should be educational.