Nicholson,+Alma

I am a coach and teacher at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I have been involved with debate on the local, regional, and national circuit as a competitor, judge, and coach for many years.


 * FAIR WARNING: ** If your aff is the same kritik that you use on the neg, you should strike me now. If you plan on telling me how the resolution framers are racist, or you plan on singing, dancing, or reading poetry, //please// **STRIKE ME NOW **. I judge plenty of speech events in addition to debate, and I expect a clear line between a policy debate round and POI.


 * Speed (Speed is mostly fine, but consider these notes): **


 * I simply don't flow as fast as once did. I need a little more time to warm up to speed. Build speed.
 * Most (and by most, I mean nearly all) debaters are not as clear as they think they are.
 * I'll usually give one "clearer" or "louder" warning per speaker, but after that, either you or your partner had better be paying attention to my facial expressions and whether I’m flowing. I have a terrible poker face, so it will be pretty obvious.
 * //If I don’t flow the argument or card text then that argument or card text it is not in the round and I am definitely not going to ask about it. // This applies even if I’m included in the email chain. Make sure your tags, source, and card context is clear, clear, clear.
 * // In terms of speed as it relates to T, theory, and Ks: // slow down - slow way down (see notes on kritiks).
 * **Please read my comments at the end of this page concerning the ever growing negative aspects of paperless debate. **


 * The Role of the Affirmative: **
 * The affirmative **must advocate the resolution through TOPICAL PLAN action **. Yes, the **aff must have a plan** and **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">it must be clearly stated in the AC. ** I am willing to listen to a critical aff that advocates the resolution with a topical plan and a critical advantage (Please see my notes on kritiks later).
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">If your Aff is a **kritik of the resolution** being racist, ageist, or ablest, you are **better off striking me.**
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Performance/Project teams will probably find it challenging (at best) to meet my view of the affirmative's role.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Topicality: **
 * //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">It’s a voter //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">A good T debate involves actual evidence and a description of why the aff does not meet the interpretation. The standards debate should include a viable limits argument. If you are going for ground, make sure you impact why it's a big deal in the round, or even for debate as a whole.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Negative teams who plan to go for topicality should be prepared to go “all in." You’re unlikely to be terribly persuasive if T is one of several positions in the 2NR.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Weighing T is just as important as it is on any other position.
 * __<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Critiquing T? Don’t bother. __ **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">T is not racist, etc. Do not run RVI’s on T. **
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">T debates should be a bit slower due to needed explanation, but does not need to be handled as slowly as a kritik.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Counterplans: **
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">I prefer non-topical counterplans. The ground division is cleaner.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Counterplans also need to be clearly competitive. A CP that is basically the plan is probably not competitive and is probably stealing ground. PICs are iffy, but that can be debated in round. Just don’t flat-out steal the aff plan.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Conditional CP’s might be a bad thing; multiple conditional CP's are probably a bad thing, but the debate as to why must be specific.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">It is better for competitiveness if the CP has a net benefit, not just a claim of solving the aff better.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Negative does NOT get the assumption of the SQ as the alternative to the CP. This choice must be explained.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">The aff is welcomed to debate whether the neg gets both worlds.
 * **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">A note on severance perms **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">: they are probably abusive. When I have voted on such a perm, it has usually been because the neg mishandled the flow and allowed the aff to get away with it. The neg needs to note that it is the affirmative’s job to advocate their plan, in its entirety, through the 2AR. It’s debatable about whether severing an advantage = severance abuse. Severing an advantage in the 2AR probably is abusive, but the neg should probably close that door in the 2NR.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">I’m also open to the aff arguing that if the neg goes for the CP in the block, they are forced to advocate it in the 2NR without severing.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Affirmatives should not argue that the "neg does not get any fiat." That's ridiculously limiting.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Disadvantages: **
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">I'm old school; I like disads. Disads should have a comparable risk to the net benefits of the AC and/or serve as a net benefit to the CP. This means you should also have a case debate.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">There should be a significant link debate (offense/defense) and a clear impact calculus. If the negative is not winning the link debate, they are not winning the impact debate (I shouldn’t even have to say this, but if I’m writing it then clearly some debaters do not get this).
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">New impacts in the block are new arguments. New links or uniqueness scenarios in the block are new arguments. The 1AR is entitled to new responses to these arguments and/or entitled to make "new argument" arguments.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Do NOT wait until the 2NR/2AR to finally weigh the impacts. Reading more cards in the block is not weighing an impact; it’s just reading more cards. An impact calculus requires clear analysis. I will put as much effort into weighing the risks as a decision calculus as you spend trying to persuade me that the argument is worth the vote.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Kritiks: **
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">I am probably **not the most kritik friendly** judge in the pool. After all these years, I still am of the opinion that the K has broken policy debate. Some teams have become overly reliant upon them, some use them to avoid having to debate the resolution, some use them to avoid having to debate an argument they just don’t like, or, in some cases, to avoid having to research.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Most kritiks have //ambiguous implications at best// and the alternative (if there is one) is often not an alternative at all. I find myself stuck voting for often ridiculous positions because the other team failed to explain clearly why the argument has little bearing in the round or fails to point out the shortcomings of the alt. This being said, "You don't like vague alternatives" //is not// an adequate response to the kritik.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">I most likely have not read the critical literature you are referencing and citing. I was not a philosophy major. I do not plan to deeply study philosophy. If you plan to run any critical positions in my presence, you must do the following:

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> 1) Slow Down. Really – Slow down. I mean conversational speed slow down. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> 2) Explain your position clearly – no blippy tag lines or argument extensions, but still a solid line by line debate. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> 3) Have a specific link <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> 4) Have a clear alternative – something more tangible than “being part of the ___ mindset," “avoiding the evils of capitalism,” or <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> "do nothing." Huh??

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Despite my personal disposition on the kritiks, the opposing team will still need to say more than “The K is bringing down policy and should go away.”


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Performance/Project Debates: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> I’m still a cost-benefits analysis policy judge at heart. //I have not changed my mind on the position that performance/project positions leave little ground for the opposing team.// I have no idea how to weigh your performance/experience/narrative against the other team’s position (performance or traditional) for the purposes of winning a debate.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Cross Ex: **
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">CX is important for fleshing out a strategy and provide clarification of arguments. //Answers in cross ex are binding.// I actually listen to cross ex and often find it interesting (and sometimes not).
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Tag Team: although interjecting yourself into your partner’s cross ex is okay from time to time, avoid taking it over. Not being able to handle your cross ex will result in lower speaker points. Continuously speaking for your partner will result in lower speaker points. CX starts when the speaker is finished. If you need 30 seconds to “set up” then that will come out of prep.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Role of the Ballot: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> My ballot determines who wins the round. That is all. If you win, you are (perhaps) one round closer to clearing. If you lose, you are (perhaps) one round closer to not clearing. My ballot does not send a message to the debate community; it is not a teaching tool; it is not an endorsement of a particular action or philosophy.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Theory: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Save theory debates for when they really need needed and warranted. Too many debaters are running theory as their “go to” argument. Debating theory as a "default" argument every round cheapens the arguments and makes judges less likely to take them seriously. Do not run any theory arguments against Topicality.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Miscellaneous: **


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Paperless Debate: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Speaking style is getting increasingly worse with paperless debate. Card reading has become choppy, debaters have problems toggling back and forth on the computer, debaters are taking liberties with prep while flashing or emailing speech docs, and instead of flowing the arguments as they are being presented, debaters are back-flowing from flashed material that may or may not have actually made it into the speech. And for some reason, there is some expectation among many debaters that judges are flowing from the speech docs. These are all poor debate practices. Teams are saving paper and tons of money when flying, but debates have become sloppy.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Prep Time: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Your prep ends when you have finished loading the flash drive and hand it off to the opposing team, or, if an email chain is set up, your prep ends when you send the email (announce that you are sending the email). This means that you are standing up to speak. If you start conversing with your partner, I will continue to run prep and I will probably dock your speaks for stealing prep.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Flowing: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Do it. Follow the flow, not the “flashed” cards. The speech doc is NOT a flow. **Do NOT mess up my flow!!!**


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Label Arguments: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> “First off, A-uniqueness” is not a label for my flow. Label each off case – Every single one of them. When you move to the case debate, be clear as to where you are and when you are moving on to another advantage, etc. Labeling is also true for the 1A; the AC needs to be crystal clear.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Reading Cards Post Round: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> I rarely do so (see beginning of philosophy). To get me to read a card requires a //specific request during your speech// and an //explanation as to why// and //what I am looking for// exactly. If I am part of the email chain, this does not mean I am automatically going to read cards. If I call for a card without you requesting it or go to the email chain without direction, then something was so unclear that I felt I had no choice. This presents an opportunity to intervene, which I do not like doing if I can avoid it.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Card Clipping: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> It’s cheating. Don’t do it. If an accusation is brought up in the round, I will take it seriously (even stop the round if necessary). If you bring it up as an accusation, you need to be darn certain you are correct. Be clear where you stop reading a card if you do not finish. "Stop card" is probably not clear enough.

//<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">As we say in New Orleans, “Be Nice or Leave”. It is fine to be competitive, but have fun. You are competitors in the round, but you should be friends outside of the round. Being a jerk in the round will not lead to friendships and it will definitely hurt your speaker points. //