Donlan,+Nick

Nick Donlan I was a 2N at Dartmouth from 2009 to 2012. I have no overwhelming predispositions towards particular arguments, but there are obviously some things you can do in front of me to increase your chances of winning and your speaker points: 1. Speaking at 90% of your usual speed and explicitly flagging and answering your opponents’ arguments are the two most important adjustments you can (and should) make. I work hard, but I am admittedly not very good at flowing. 2. Evidence quality/explanation matters over quantity. I care more about author qualifications and source quality than the average bear. The opportunity cost to reading stupid or poorly highlighted evidence is the early loss of your credibility during CX. 3. Hard work and specific research will be rewarded. This does not mean I prefer “policy” arguments over “critical” ones. It does mean I would rather hear a kritik of apocalyptic warming representations than an argument which can be simply denoted by its primary author’s last name. 4. I prefer to make decisions on the quality of the debate over the evidence rather than the quality of the evidence itself. I will read evidence when the outcome of the debate hinges on it or if there is a dispute over its usage. In the event that I ask for evidence, please make sure you have appropriately marked the parts read. I will not read for warrants or arguments which were not sufficiently communicated to me during the debate. Perhaps most importantly: please be warned that if I have difficulty understanding you, I will not be inclined to piece together the debate on your behalf during my decision time.

Topicality Unless instructed otherwise, I view topicality in terms of interpretations and reasonable limits. I am generally skeptical of planless affirmatives with little specific connection to the topic. There is a substantive difference between the war powers authority of the President and authority in the debate space, and affirmatives should be willing to defend a controversial change to statutory or judicial restrictions on the resolution’s issues (if not a specific federal government “plan”). It’s fine if you choose not to read a plan, but be prepared to articulate specific offense against the topical version of your affirmative.

Evidence Please frame how I should view sections of the debate and how I should evaluate competing claims about evidence in terms of issues like source quality, recency, etc. I place a premium on reasonable arguments, even when uncarded, and have a certain threshold for unreasonable arguments, even when carded. Ideally, I would prefer all arguments to be both reasonable and carded, but if you are forced to choose, say (more) things that make sense if you don’t have (as many) cards about those things.

Theory To be a winning argument, you need to slow down and adapt your arguments to what has happened over the course of the debate. If you clearly just answered the wrong politics disad in the 2AC, that won’t make your arguments against conditionality particularly persuasive to me. I am neutral towards most of these issues, though I should admit that using multiple actors in a counterplan has always struck me as unfair. That being said, if there is a solvency advocate in the literature for such a counterplan, I might be more easily persuaded of its legitimacy.

Case Way too often the neg lets the 2AC get away with blowing off case. If the 2AC isn’t responding clearly to each of the arguments in the 1NC, groups unrelated arguments, or doesn’t cite 1AC ev, call them out on it and grandstand a bit in the block. Debate advantages beyond reading alternate causes and impact defense.

If their two-card “water wars” add-on is stupid, you might be better off pointing out each of its missing internal links instead of reading ev which says water wars haven’t happened before. Don’t get too caught up in the whole “terminal impact defense” thing at the expense of being reasonable.

Old philosophy: Loyola/Dartmouth Judged 30-ish rounds at DDW/DDI

You should select whatever strategy you think gives you the best chance to win the debate. I do not have any overwhelming predispositions against particular arguments and will do my best to not let them influence my decisions, but obviously have a few opinions on how debate should operate. 1. I'd prefer to make decisions on the quality of the debate over the evidence rather than the quality of the evidence itself. I will only read cards when the outcome of the debate hinges on it. In the event that I do call for evidence, I won't read for warrants or arguments that weren't explained in speeches. **Also, please be warned that if I have difficulty understanding you during cards, I won't do much work for you after the round.** 2. Framing - please tell me how I should evaluate sections of the debate or how I should view competing claims about evidence in terms of things like qualifications, etc. 3. I place a premium on reasonable arguments, even when un-carded, and have a certain threshold for unreasonable arguments, even when carded. Ideally, I would prefer all arguments to be both reasonable and carded, but if you are forced to choose, say (more) things that make sense if you don't have (as many) cards about those things. 4. I think defense is severely under-utilized and that it's possible to win a 100% risk takeout. 5. Unless told otherwise, I view T in terms of interpretations and reasonable limits. 6.Theory - to win on this you need to a) slow down and b) adapt your blocks to what's happened. Neutral on most of these issues except alternate actor fiat and multiple fiated actors kind of weirds me out. 7. Walk the line between being competitive and being a jerk carefully - if you're debating a team that's not on your level, be nice.