Shook,+Nicholas

I debated for four years at the Meadows School in Las Vegas, NV and am a graduate of UC-Berkeley.

I'll listen to anything as long as it's well-evidenced and relevant to the the topic.

But after being out of the activity a while I have a tough time reconciling critiques. I feel that as a judge I'm stuck in a role where I have to choose a winner and a loser; both teams are trying to appease me to vote way or another. As such, I have a hard time evaluating "postmodern" critiques. I don't think that reading arguments about how distinctions of good and evil are normalizing, or how the language of the affirmative constitutes harm is persuading when you're trying to tell me why you should win and advance in the debate tournament. I'm not the best judge if you want to run Nietzsche, Foucault, Heidegger, etc.