Nelson,+Spencer

__**Background:**__ Debated 5 years at Edgemont High School, graduated in 2007. Now at Northwestern, but not debating. I'm coaching New Trier as of 2008-2009. I judge an unholy number of rounds.

__**Philosophy**__ No one likes a long philosophy other than the author. I'll be brief:
 * Framework is extremely important. I find a startling number of rounds come down to who wins some sort of framework - impact evaluation, role of the ballot, reasonability/competing interpretations, etc.
 * Comparative impact analysis is huge.
 * I am willing to vote on 100% defense, and have done so several times.
 * I think disclosure is really super duper good. If the other team doesn't even disclose a plan text they have already read, and I am in the room to see it, I would strongly encourage you to make a procedural argument in the 1NC. I don't think they'll have any offense.
 * Be nice.

Also, I have some views not up to debate:
 * The rules are the rules - this covers speech times, only one winner, etc.
 * If you cheat, you lose.
 * An argument must have a warrant for me to vote on it.
 * Cross ex is binding.

__**If you really want detail:**__ My "dream debate," as far as I have one, would be a very specific counterplan or PIC with a case-specific net benefit, which the aff answers with deep solvency analysis. Debates that show off research skills while achieving clash are the best.

Clarity and organization is very important. Go slower than you normally would, and use lots of numbering.
 * Topicality**

Specific PICs are like a work of art and can be a joy to watch when executed right. I don't have as much of a problem with stupid counterplans like consult or referendums as some people.
 * Counterplans**

I love a good politics disad. I think a lot of these debates end up being about defense on the disad at the link and uniqueness level, which should be clearly impacted by the aff.
 * Politics**

2Ns should stop giving silly rambling overviews. "That's another link" is not a response to an impact turn.
 * Critiques**

I have a hard time believing its necessary to reject the team. If you want to win that a given theory argument is a reason to reject, I think you need to both give warranted analysis for that and be really rock solid on the theory debate with no loopholes or dropped answers. If you have questions, certainly ask. I can be reached at WoodenTaco@gmail.com.
 * Theory**