Tilmes,+Nick

I am a sophomore debating for Cornell University (CEDA Octas) and assistant coach for Georgetown Day School, where I debated for 4 years.

Judge philosophies lie. If my judge philosophy would change the arguments you read, you lack conviction. If you lack conviction, you shall surely lack my ballot. Do what you do best or, better yet, what you believe in.

My role is to adjudicate debates, not to intervene in them, absent reprehensible in-round behavior. Debaters determine the curriculum and the only absolute rule is that one team wins and the other loses – I am a Kritikal debater, but can be persuaded to vote on almost anything.

I am a technical judge, but find clash, meta-level framing, and mastery of argument far more persuasive than avalanches of cards.

DAs: establishing a clear brink for your links and distinguishing impact uniqueness is key – if the risk of the DA is sufficiently low, I can be persuaded to disregard it.

CPs: ideally should have solvency advocates – you should establish competition beyond purely theoretical justifications.

Ks: are certainly my favorite argument, but you must still explain links in-depth, discuss how the alt resolves the internal link to aff impacts, and ideally outframe the aff. While the neg must negate the aff – alts are not necessary and presumption is always an option. K v. K debates are often won or lost on the link level in the CX of the 1AC.

T: Topicality is more strategic than Framework – TVAs must resolve the aff and meet your interp – explain how your voters turn or solve the aff.

Theory: I do not enjoy theory debates and, absent a near total drop, am unlikely to vote on them unless there is extreme in-round abuse.