Nesiba,+Nathan


 * Background:** I am currently a 3rd year debater at Concordia College. I run mostly critical arguments, so I'll be more familiar with that literature base, but I feel confident judging more "traditional" debates as well, just make sure that the arguments are well explained. However, I have not judged many rounds on the topic, so I won't necessarily know the technical language surrounding it, or be familiar with some of the politics scenarios.


 * Specific issues:** run whatever you're most comfortable with, as those will be the arguments you can probably explain the best, but I do have a few biases listed below. I will attempt to evaluate the round however I am told by the debaters, and in the most objective manner I can.


 * Topicality:** I have a pretty high threshold for T. I try to go into rounds without any preconceived notion of what the resolution means, (other than the words involved) and I find it difficult to reject an interpretation without a very clear explanation of why we shouldn't be allowed to approach the words that way. This means if you do go for T, make sure your abuse story is well explained.


 * Framework:** pretty similar to T. I'm probably more apt to vote on FW at the end, though, if you have to choose between the two. Again, make sure the explanations of both why their arguments don't fit within the framework, and why that framework is important are made in the round. I will likely be more persuaded if framework is used as a reason to reject individual arguments rather than the opposing team.


 * Disads/Counter-plans:** Yes. Interesting/tricky PICs can be very persuasive. Again, just make sure the impact "story" of the argument is clear (why they link, why that matters.)


 * Kritiks:** This is where most of my debate experience lies. This means I may be more familiar with your literature (don't assume this, though), but I will also be more familiar with the arguments the authors are making. Analyticals that address these specifically will probably be more persuasive than just reading a bunch of evidence. You don't necessarily need an alternative, but try to be clear about what my ballot is doing at the end of the round.


 * Performance****:** Do what you do. Make it productive. Be ready to defend it. I feel like there probably should be some explanation by the end of the block to make the other teams abuse claims less potent.


 * TL;DR:** I like explanations. Tell me the story of your arguments and explain how they interact with your opponents arguments.

Email: nnesiba@gmail.com