Liakopoulos,+Nicole

To start, I debated in High School at the Varsity Policy Level for 3 years. I have been judging for the past 2 years. Although my philosophy may seem a bit unorthodox to some, it may be because of my debate history. I'm very comfortable with speed and almost never consider it an issue. I find clarity is the problem and am more than willing to say "clear" once or twice, but after that you're on your own.

Theory - I tend to be a big theory fan as long as it's a clear and in depth debate. I won't pull the trigger on a T/Theory argument that has been argued for all of about 10 minutes in the entirety of the debate. I don't think potential abuse is even close to being a reason to vote so I suggest not making the argument. I can only judge the current round I'm watching. However, if you feel comfortable going for theory, do it. I love seeing a good debate about it.

Kritiks - I debated almost every kritikal position that was available to me and I love the philosophy behind it. However, I won't consider it a viable option if the alternative is never talked about. I need a good idea of why the altnerative is a good idea and how it solves. To me, it should be a "story" so to speak. Affs - don't feel like you're doomed in this position. I love to listen to a really good perm debate, and many times I think they are very winnable debates if executed effectively. I think framework gets a bit silly so please don't go overboard with it.

As far as CPs/ DAs are concerned, I like the arguments but I think the neg often forgets that case defense is necessary in order to win these debates. I'm not a huge fan of consult counterplans, but it doesn't mean I won't listen to them. If you care to know why, please feel free to ask me. Overall, I think that in these debates it really comes down to plan vs. viable option. Again, theory becomes an issue here, and I think that sometimes it's a very good idea to go for it, but again please make sure I'm getting good coverage on it.

I'll pretty much listen to/vote for anything. Impact calculus is a must in front of me, and I will do anything I possibly can to avoid being interventionist. Almost always I'll tell you the arguments I think you should have made or extended but I will never do that work for you. I almost always go straight off the flow unless the debate forces me to go outside of that norm.

If you have any other questions or concerns feel free to email me - I notice my philosophy isn't nearly as in depth as everyone elses. koukla.in.pink@gmail.com