Bormann,+Nick

Nick Bormann. Competed in policy debate for eight years. Now in graduate school at George Mason University.

Judging Philosophy (updated on 1/2/2012):

I think debate should be hard. I want to see the teams in the room display their technique and cleverness, not the research effort of some assistant coach five years ago. I do not care what type of arguments are made (critiques, PICs, DA, theory, whatever) but they should demonstrate a degree of skill in presentation, structure, and the research effort involved. Generally speaking, I think affirmatives have an advantage from prior preparation, so I am sympathetic to clever negative strategies to combat that advantage and will typically err neg on theory. On the flip side, lazy negative teams that rely on overly short cards, weak explanation, and a "shotgun" strategy will quickly lose my sympathy and become more vulnerable to theory arguments. Reading a generic consultation CP or other backfile will not impress me or get you good speaker points. Ideally, every debate should involve case arguments which directly challenge the 1AC.

I won't call for cards after the round unless there is a factual dispute on what the evidence says. Do your impact analysis during the debate, because I won't expend much effort on reconstructing it afterwards. I do my best to keep personal beliefs out of the decision, but you should know that I'm pursuing an economics Ph.D at a program with conservative/libertarian leanings and it probably influences how I look at the world. Comparing tangible impacts and opportunity costs is usually my default position. I start from that standpoint whether the argument is CP or K, so demonstrating that both your alternative solves the impact and is competitive is extremely important on the negative.

I do not necessarily view myself as a policymaker when judging (although I'm open to that as a framework position) but rather as a critic of argument. I don't think my ballot has much of an impact on anything but your ego. However, if there is a particular way you want me to situate my ballot, make it explicit! I'm willing to listen to performance-based or narrative affs with an open mind, but I still expect them to present an impact and solve it, as well as some sort of clear advocacy statement which will be defended throughout the round. Generally "violence", "exclusion", or "it hurts my feelings" are not much of an impact. If a team relies on obfuscation in early speeches as their strategy, I tend to think they are lazy, and become much more sympathetic to the other team (e.g. if you say "the USFG should..." in the 1AC, then won't defend government action in later speeches, that is obfuscation and you will probably lose unless the neg completely drops the ball on topicality).

I'm willing to vote negative on presumption if the aff's impact does not matter, they have zero capacity to solve it, or a fundamental assumption behind the 1AC is demonstrated to be false. Similarly, I'm also willing to dismiss a disad if there is shown to be no link -- I encourage affs to make more than defensive arguments, but if the negative is saying "there's no offense so there must be a risk vote because we solve" it's just lazy argumentation.

I judge off of the flow, so if your strategy relies on emotional appeals over technique I'm probably not a good judge for you. However, I'm very open to creative or unconventional arguments. If you successfully present something I've never seen before, it will probably get you good speaker points.

Fast debate is good debate so speak as quickly as you want, but be aware that I will try to flow the content of evidence if I can follow it. Evidence quality matters to my decision and I rarely call for cards, so it's to your advantage to be understandable. I'm not involved with debate in any capacity at the moment, so don't assume I have any prior knowledge of the topic.

If it will help give any insight on how I think, check out [|my economics blog].