Jensen,+Nick

A generally good rule to debate by is to be a polite, concise debater. Be reasonable.

TL;DR: Do anything, more critical more better.

Policy is under LD

Please ask me more questions before the round (and if you're reading this, make them specific). Do not end the round waiting to rage. I will do my best to make my decision and line of thought clear and I strive to make debaters feel that they were not cheated in a decision. Help me be better in this activity by communicating with me and I will help you as best I see possible. __**Experience**__

3 years high school PFD 3 years coaching 3 years (cont.) Parliamentary Debate at the University of Utah

__**Lincoln Douglas**__

Concisely state how I best view the round. If you want to weigh on the impacts (or not) then make it apparent and do your best to agree ('get some defense') on the opponent's value and criterion. If you expound theory for 15 minutes in the round on framework without reasons to prefer, it becomes a much more uninteresting debate.

Compare worlds is my default.


 * Speed:** Fine with it. Usually it should not be a problem for me, but the opponent always has the right to clear. Hopefully you give some delineation in your speed as to what is being read as a tag and what is the body of the card. There is an increasing tendency to use speed through some kind of aesthetic. You are not fast because I cannot understand you or because your are yelling or because you breathe like you are speaking fast.


 * Theory:** No problem here. I consider myself to have a high threshold on theory arguments, first because many need to structure them better, and second because I will not have a great time listening to it unless there is proven abuse. Potential abuse is not a very good voter for me, unless it is clear how your position needs to be protected. I see myself changing, though. If you clean win the flow on theory and go for it, obviously you should win on theory.


 * Topicality:** Very similar to the theory section, proven abuse is best. That being said, I will vote for a non-topical affirmative provided the 1AC does the justification for why what you have to say is preferable to questions of topicality (or theory). Reasonability over competing interps; I feel like it is completely reasonable to discuss certain critical issues over topic-specific ones.


 * Kritiks:** Please do. I continually get asked whether I would vote for a critique in LD, say yes, and still do not hear any. I will vote for an affirmative critique, because they are justifiable and I like things that are justifiable. Even more wild things? Go for it.


 * Plans in LD:** I do not have a problem here, because I like the policy style. It should be warranted why this is a good parameticization in the shell so your opponent can grasp what in the hell is going on.

If your opponent is misunderstanding or mishandling your arguments, while that is unfortunate, it happens. A good way I will like you better (which inevitably helps your speaker points) is to really work to help your opponent understand as best you can. The more educational debate is, the more reason to do it.

__**Policy**__

I see myself as pretty open. So read the LD section since most of it just says, "Go for it."