Nishioka,+Drew

Drew Nishioka, Coach Whitney Young High School

Debated in high school and traveled nationally with some college experience. I have extensive judging experience on the topic and have judged at most major tournaments, elim rounds, and RR's. Speed is fine.

I try to listen to everything with an open mind. If you run a performance aff, and the other team debates you well on education and ground, if you are not topical, you may be facing an uphill battle. However, I have voted for affs such as the one described above more than half the time. Probably because the neg doesn't debate fairness and education well.

Topicality - I prefer to evaluate topicality before other issues (unless this is debated). Generally, if you want to win a "spec argument" try asking in cross-ex first. Please impact and explain your arguments. Don't just say "they allow for a million cases, they could give farmers in Idaho potato scrubbers". Explain the abuse, whether it be in round or potential for abuse. Explain what the abuse does and how it does/may affect you. I think T arguments could be significantly more developed and researched. I do believe there are plenty of cases which aren't topical, I just don't feel it is debated as well as it should be. If a T debate is crappy, I tend to lean affirmative (not impacted, not explained). I tend to believe in CI.

Theory - I will listen to theory, and certainly could be persuaded to vote on in round abuse. Generally, I don't give a lot of credit to blippy voting issues other than dropping the argument. If there is in round abuse, I will be more likely to vote on theory. And if a voter is dropped throughout the round, Id pull the trigger there too.

CP’s – I am open to any C/P. I tend to dislike non-competitive consultation counterplans. However, I have voted on consult a bunch. I prefer a well researched PIC or similar (not a silly funding pic unless aff specifies). I tend to lean against Universal C/P because I tend to believe it isn't a very good argument.

K’s- I am open to them. However, I do not feel that they are debated very well, and I feel that negs are often shady with the "alternative" and impacts they wish to solve for. Don't hide in ambiguity.I am fine with K’s when debated well. That begs the question, what does “well” mean? I guess I like to know what Framework I should be evaluating the K within. Is the K consistent and explained throughout the round? If you explain the K, impact it, explain your framework and how I weigh it against the case.. Just like anything else, I will be open to it.

Be ethical, funny and polite and I will be happy. Please don't clip cards. Explain your arguments beyond the tags, and don't make me evaluate the round on my own.