Nhan,+Alex

Debated for three years on the high school policy debate circuit. broke to NFL and NCFL and broke into quarter finals at NCFL. Now a coach at Hunter High School in West Valley City, Utah. I understand both LD and Policy Debate stylistics and I am fine with both traditional and progressive debate. Overall philosophy: I am fine with mostly anything you run as long as you justify each of your arguments well enough with warrants although there are a few nitpicky things that I prefer when it comes to debating, especially in the last few rebuttals. I have to add though that I enjoy listening and judging critical arguments more than traditional arguments but that doesn't mean that I would base my vote on it. When it comes down to it no matter how you debate I will vote on who debated better. For me **judge intervention should be prevented at all costs,** this means that within the last rebuttals you should lay down to me where am I voting and why I am voting on it. First off, **slow down on taglines and authors**, not extensively slow but just a quick brisk pace on the taglines will do just fine, other then that, go as fast as you'd like.

Secondly, if you're going to run a theory argument where I have to reject the opposing team, **prove to me some type of abuse scenario**, preferably in-round abuse, or else I will be hesitant to vote for it lest the other team does not answer it or drops it.

Thirdly, **vague alts justify vague perms**. As a judge who enjoys kritikal debating, it would be awesome if you could delineate to me how your advocacy specifically solves for the harms that you are trying to criticize. Advocacies, solvency, and methodologies are a necessity when it comes to kritiks of any type, justify each of these within your kritik and I will be a happy camper.

Fourth, when it comes to impact calculus don't just read a bunch of premade blocks make sure you have **competing impact calculus**<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> with the opposing team. Apparently in the debate space people feel that just reading a bunch of cards and blocks will save them and do the work for them. Although premade blocks are awesome don't solely rely on them, I want actual debating and critical thinking, not just some kid reading off of their computer excessively in the 2NR.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Tag team is fine**<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">, but be warned that speaker points not only reflect the speeches but also reflect who does most of the work in CX as well. So think wisely before answering or asking all the questions while your partner remains silent.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Prep ends when you tell me it does**<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> unless it takes an excessive amount of time to "flash" your speech over to your opponents then I will be forced to end prep when the flash leaves your computer. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">When it comes to **Post-Fiat v. Pre-Fiat** I tend to do whatever the debaters tell me via their framework or preferences based off of whether one arg encompasses/entrenches the opposing teams impacts, etc. I don't really err towards one side but generally if it comes down to the debate if I have to decide whether I should vote on something because it's a prerequisite to solvency of the impact(Pre-Fiat) compared to whether I actually solve for the impacts given to me in a post-fiat world (Post-Fiat) I have to err towards post-fiat because, in my sense, even if the K is a prerequisite to the impacts of the 1AC (or whatever instance you give to me) any risk of solvency for the impacts of the aff outweigh some type of solvency deficit given to me by the prereq args on the neg. of course these claims I give are debateable and if you prove to me that pre-fiat should be weighed over post-fiat in the round then I will definitely weigh it especially if that what the round comes down to. But if you're going to have a post-fiat/pre-fiat debate make sure ot articulate to me the theoretical reasons why I should prefer either. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">**DOs:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">CLASH CLASH CLASH CLASH CLASH <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Run args that you feel powerful about, pathos is an awesome tool use it to your advantage <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**DON'Ts:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**some** (and by some I mean that some words I despise and other words I'm just like meh) forms of bad language - I HATE THE WORD RETARDED <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I don't mind saying "guys" i feel like it's colloquialized to the extent that it includes the female body but even if, you can still run G-Lang and if you prove to me enough how this bad language is inherently bad then I will vote on it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__**<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Specific stuff **__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">**Topicality:** I am not a huge fan of topicality especially generic ones because the majority of the time these generic topicalities are only ran for time skew which is totally fine but if you plan on going for topicality in the 2NR then I want you to articulate specifically 1. how they are untopical 2. why is this bad for the debate or debate in general. I am huge on standard debates if you run a topicality argument make sure to specify to me as the judge why these standards are important for debate or for you as a team and how the other team delegimitizes these standards. This doesn't mean that I won't vote for Topicality it just means I have a high threshold on it. However, if you're going to go for T in the 2NR make sure to spend 5 whole minutes on T not to split it because obviously if T is an apriori concern to me then it should be the only argument in your 2NR decision. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">As the AFF I'm not big on RVIs unless you can prove that the other team is abusive through their topicality. Competing interpretations and counter standards are your best friends.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Don't Post-Round me I will dock your speaks **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">**Counterplans:** I don't really have much to say on this part. Just make sure to specify what the counterplan solves for specifically, how it solves, and how it doesn't trigger the net benefit.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">On the aff, articulation of permutation solvency and net benefits to the permutations are a must if you plan on permutating the CP. I don't want some random perm being read without articulation of what the permutation is actually doing and how it solves. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">**Disadvantages:** like the Counterplan section I really have little to say on this part. Most of the time disadvantages come down to impact calculus debates. whether doing the aff advocacy is good or not so this is where my **competitive impact calculus** statements come in. Articulate how the impacts of doing the plan are more disadvantageous than beneficial and vice versa for the aff

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">**Criticisms:** I really enjoy critical debates I think they're entertaining and really bring out the more personal aspects of debate. I thoroughly enjoy identity and biopolitics kritiks. one thing that I would emphasize for kritik is alternative solvency and the mechanism for which you use to solve the harms for which you are trying to criticize. I enjoy good role of the ballot and framework debates and why me as a judge signing a piece of paper is so crucial (or not crucial depending on if you are aff or neg) to your solvency/args. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">**Theory:** I don't really vote on theory arguments unless I actually get proven an abuse scenario I find them to be a bit whiny at times and aren't very beneficial to debate unless there are actual harms being presented from the other team.