Bashaw,+Nathan

I am a debater for Michigan State, I debated at Little Rock Central in high school. This is my second year judging.

I guess the first thing I should say is that I reward debaters that make connections between arguments, and complete arguments. I think that a complete argument consists of a claim, warrants for the claim, and the implication of the argument. When I am evaluating a round I stick to what debaters tell me, and try to not intervene as much as possible. I'll read evidence at the end of the round usually.

Topicality: Because I don't have a lot of experience on this topic you should explain clearly the interpretation/counter-interp, and why that is best for debate. I honestly would rather not judge a T debate, but don't let that affect your 2NR decision calculus too much if you think you are winning T. I tend to buy reasonability arguments, so if you want to go for T make sure you are winning that competing interpretations are good.

The K: I am minoring in philosophy, and ran the K a lot in high school, but I would consider myself a policy debater now. I don't have a ton to say; i'll listen to it and evaluate it, but it is helpful if you are clear about what your argument is and why it matters you shouldn't be in too much trouble. I'm not a fan of huge 2NC overviews, I think they are a waste of time and a good K debater will just answer the arguments on the flow and insert the analysis/explanation where it is necessary.

Performance: If I don't understand your advocacy, I won't vote for it. I'm fine with performance as long as you are the better debaters.

Theory: I am not a huge fan of listening to huge theory debates, but obviously if the other team is being legitimately sketchy there needs to be a check on that. If you want to go for theory I usually need an abuse story of some sort, and it probably shouldn't just be potential abuse unless you are clearly winning "potential abuse is a voter." I think dispo is definitely good, condo is good, and even multiple conditional advocacy's are mostly good. It's going to be an uphill battle.

I like to hear good debates where debaters evaluate what it means if they win "x" argument in the rebuttals, not just talk about how big their impacts are. "Even if" statements are helpful.

If you have any specific questions just ask.