Wexelblatt,+Nina

Hi! I'm Nina; I debated for Albuquerque Academy for four years.

First off, I think the most important thing I took away from debate is that it only matters if you're doing it out of enjoyment, so I encourage debaters to have a wonderful time while they're debating. I know how stressful it can be, and I know that sometimes this is an unrealistic goal, but it's way more interesting to watch a debate when the participants don't seem like they're upset or bored in some way. Of course, you not looking like you're having fun won't hurt your speaks; it's just nice to have a good time!

In general, I see job of each debater to prove the resolution true or not true. It doesn't matter to me if you want to do this through a truth-testing or comparative worlds paradigm, but it would be great if you could make it clear what each debater would need to prove in order to win the round. I am very okay with non-traditional structure to cases as long as you make it clear how your burden/standard/thing ought to operate. Engage in a framework debate if you see the cases operating completely differently. I love a good framework debate.

I am wary of theory. Potential abuse is not a thing. Please engage arguments unless there is no possible way you could make a substantive response. Don't whine. Tips on running theory: don't, unless it's super compelling. That said, I'm never going to not vote on theory because I'm not such a fan. Just be warned that I have a low threshold for responses to theory. "Reject the argument, not the debater" seems reasonable, as does a reason you don't meet the violation, as are pointing out missing links in the theory shell. In short, theory might be dangerous. The one exception is multiple (and by multiple, I mean like 3 or more) a prioris. I will vote on them if they are dropped and extended well, but I'll listen closely to theory against this, since they really do make debate less substantive.

I am fine with critical arguments. In fact, I will probably love you if your arguments are interesting, even if they are just strong, unique positional cases.

I will not vote on an argument I find morally reprehensible, because we're human beings before we're debaters. But don't worry, these kinds of arguments are ridiculous things you wouldn't want to run anyway (...right?) like saying genocide is good. Not gonna fly.

Please make good extensions! If you watch me while you are making your extension and I don't look like I just drew a big arrow across the flow, your argument isn't there anymore! Claim, warrant, impacts. I don't like blippy spreaders (but then, who does?). Speed is fine but, just a tip, if you sound like you're suffocating while you're speaking, you should probably work on that. I'll call clear, but don't worry, I was a fast debater too. If I look confused as you're speaking, slow down and let me know where on the flow the argument belongs. If you're a super technical, fast debater and you're debating a kid who is very obviously not, you don't need to pull out all the stops. Have compassion, maybe slow it down a bit. There is no reason to humiliate people and scare them away from debate.

But yeah, feel free to ask me questions before the round if you want. Remember to have a good time!