Webster,+Nick


 * Experience ** : I debated policy for three years throughout high school at McDowell, ive competed in PA states numerous times, as well as NSDA/NFL, and NCFL nationals many times. I started out as a traditional debater but towards the end of my career I fell in love with critical debate and did mostly critical stuff my senior year. Im a student at Pitt and am currently volunteer coaching/judging for McDowell and Fox Chapel high schools.


 * Overview ** : As long as its clear, well structured, and not clearly 'cheating' I will listen to anything not incredibly offensive or limiting in the debate space.


 * Topicality:** I can quickly be persuaded by the reasonability argument. I love to hear creative affirmatives, but that doesn't mean I endorse irrelevant affs. Non-USFG advocacies are cool, but if they aren't somehow directed back to the 'theme' of the resolution in any context id be rather hesitant to vote on it.


 * Theory ** : I'll be happy to listen to theory in against the 'obviously cheating' types of arguments like garbage counterplans and things of the sort, but once the theory turns into a gross way to get an edge in the round I will begin to hate you


 * Conditionality ** : A little bit of conditionality is OK, but once the worlds conflict im more open to be persuaded on condo.


 * Framework ** : Framework is really important for me, defining the debate space helps me weigh the crazy things some teams might be saying. Im more keen to accepting a framework that is less restrictive to the debate space.


 * Politics DA: ** Politics DA's are super lame but I understand if you feel like it happens to be some of the only offense you can bring out in the particular round. I will just be very sad if you decide to run it. I will listen to it and vote on it if you win, but i may be in tears by the end of the round.


 * Kritiks: ** Go for em, I am happy to listen to any kritik as long as you have a understanding of the literature such that you can easily explain everything. I am familiar with probably anything you'd run but be clear with constructed vocabulary. I love anything anti-state.


 * “Performance:” **Open to it but have little experience judging or debating it. If you go for it make sure to keep the round competetive and don't construct anything that makes your opponent irrelevant. Make sure to tell me how to evaluate the round


 * Prep time ** : I usually do not take prep time for saving and transmitting evidence, whether by USB drive or email chain, but if it becomes a burden I might say something about it.


 * In Round: ** If you're giving your own speech I could hardly care less what else you're doing in the round as long as its respectful, and I can hear everyone talk. Respecting your opponent is key