Nys,+Nate

Nate Nys Affiliations: Blake I'm currently a senior and am in my fourth year of policy debate. I will be attending Wake Forest.


 * My old philosophy was much too lengthy and no could/should have read through the entirety of my ranting. So here are my basic thoughts about debate.**

- I will vote for any argument. An argument is comprised of a claim, warrant, and impact. Arguments that could on-face be considered absurd or offensive must be answered as such. If you can't figure out a warrant for why genocide is bad then you should consequently lose to a team who said it was good (although both teams will receive horrid speaker points and a few nasty comments). Sometimes absurd arguments can be answered with the most trivial responses like simply giving them a thumbs-down. If you get me to chuckle, then you're doing something right. - The critical/policy divide is silly. Debate is valuable because its content is determined by the debaters and not the judge. If unipolarity good is your thing then do you. On the flip-side, if critical theory and performance is your thing, then do that. - Tech determines truth and not the other way around. - I only have two rules about the content of the debate. 1) You need to follow speech times. 2) You can't dictate what speaker points I give you. - I vary between being VERY expressive and not showing any emotion. Not sure why. You'll figure out very quickly which mood I'm in. - Debate is a game so play to win.
 * Basics:**

- I'm fine with all types of affs. - Internal links are important, debaters should exploit this more. - Attacks on solvency are under-utilized. Specifics should come before generic impact defense. - Analytics are frequently more persuasive than reading large quantities of poor-quality evidence. - Zero risk of aff is possible and I have a lower threshold than most for voting on presumption. - If I don't understand what your aff does or why I should vote for it then I will not vote for it.
 * Aff's:**

- The more specific the DA the better it is. - Turns case analysis should be included somewhere in the block. - Contrived DA's can be taken out with quick internal link indicts. Usually the evidence is either quite bad or can be cut the other way.
 * DA's:**

- Consult, delay, and other questionably cheaty counterplans can be beat with theory. Unfortunately aff teams frequently get too spread out from the block and neglect that portion of the debate. - PIC's work well with a solid net benefit as long as you actually PIC out of a substantial portion of the aff. - I won't judge-kick unless A) I'm expressly told to by the 2NR and B) the 2AR's response is lacking. - I like process CP's with solvency advocates. If you don't have carded solvency, it is still winnable but much less persuasive. - You should make sufficiency framing arguments. - Presumption goes aff if you go for a CP in the 2NR. - Word PIC's aren't very persuasive unless the aff makes arguments about why rhetoric is important.
 * CP's:**

- Usually reject the arg not the team is sufficient. - Line by line dictates how these debates go down so be careful with technical drops. - Any more than two condo is iffy.
 * Theory:**

- Go slower on explanations, I can only write so fast. - Ground claims that occur in round are very persuasive (I.E. The aff no-linking a DA through un-topical action). - Limits claims on both sides are very persuasive. - Jurisdiction is silly.
 * T:**

- If, when the aff team is giving the order for their speech and they say "framework, you say the phrase, "do you mean topicality?" I will immediately lower your speaks to a maximum of 26. - Internal links and impacts are different. Impact calculus should be prioritized. - I swing 50/50 on these debates.
 * FW:**

- If you pref me because of the type of arguments I ran please re-evaluate your decision making choices. - I know the K. I will know when you're lying or when your arguments don't make any sense. - If I don't know what I'm voting for then I will not vote for it. - Please understand your literature base. Great K debaters don't win by confusing their opponents; they win by engaging the specificity of the aff with in-depth knowledge of a certain vein of critical literature that has a coherent impact and alt story.
 * K:**


 * Everything should be up to debate. Anything I have written above can be changed in round with solid debating. I'm not dogmatic enough to think I understand the correct or most educational way for debate to occur so I'll be happy if you can change my mind on a few things. Everyone has biases and I'm no exception. All I can promise is that I'll do my best to keep those biases outside of the debate round and judge both teams on their own terms.**
 * Email me with any questions; I'd love to answer them: nate.nys@gmail.com**