Lepp,+Nick

***this has not been updated in over a year. My philosophy on tabroom is current and way better explains what I think about debate. You should read that philosophy in order to understand what I think about debate.

I debated at Broad Run High School for four years (2008-2012) and am currently a senior debating at James Madison University (11/18/2015). I am in my 8th year of debating. I am also an assistant debate coach at Berkeley Preparatory High School and Turner Ashby High School. ***I would like to be included on the email chain, if there is one. NJL1994@gmail.com**


 * Some things to know about me (in no particular order of importance)-- **

A) In topicality debates-- I'll vote aff on terminal defense (i.e. reasonability, functional limits, etc). I'm more persuaded by terminal defense in topicality debates the more generic the neg impact argument is. B) With non-topical affs-- Why vote aff? I frequently don't understand what voting aff does for solving impacts in these debates. Basically, there are serious solvency questions that non-topical affs frequently don't deal with and most debaters don't seem to think are very relevant questions. However, I won't ever intervene to vote on presumption-- that's an argument that the debaters need to make (IE if the 2NR doesn't include any solvency deficits, I'll grant that voting aff solves their impacts).  ***This is distinct from a "role of the ballot" question for me. The role of the ballot is only ever a question of impact calculus. For example, if you win that the role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best liberates the oppressed, that means that the way I should conduct impact calculus is based on which team better liberates the oppressed (whatever the hell that even really means). That being said, "role of the ballot" style arguments are generally incredibly self-serving and hard for me to evaluate frequently. The reason I think that is that teams never really give a reason WHY I should prefer your role of the ballot. Teams seem to just say "the role of the ballot is X" and move on. Why should that be the role of the ballot? Why should I prefer that role of the ballot over a competing role of the ballot? These questions are almost never answered which makes me default to voting for whoever does the better debating (IE who has more offense against the other team/a sufficient amount of defense to make that offense outweigh). This also means that "the role of the ballot is to vote for whoever does the better debating" is a lot more persuasive than any other role of the ballot for me.**
 * 1. Impact calculus is incredibly important to me and where I start deciding 99% of the debates that I judge. If I don't know how to weigh the impacts in the round, I'll probably default to reading your impact cards and voting for whichever team has the better card. I'm generally pretty offense/defense oriented when I judge debates. That means it's difficult to persuade me that there is zero risk of a link, or zero risk of an advantage. I won't say it's impossible, but it's definitely pretty difficult. Even so, I don't think you necessarily need to win offense on every flow to win the debate. For example, a 2AR that goes for a uniqueness take out and a small quantity of impact defense on a DA and wins the case sounds like a fairly persuasive 2AR to me. I generally think about debate in terms of risk (does the risk of the advantage being true outweigh the risk of the disad being true?). **
 * The most likely way to win my ballot on presumption is through yes/no questions that take out the entirety of the aff (circumvention, silly K tricks, etc). External to impact calculus itself, this means you should be impacting each argument you're making. What does it mean for the politics disad that a particular important senator likes your aff? Why does it matter that your evidence is newer than their evidence? If you aren't impacting individual arguments, this is where my decision is most likely to sound like it's from out of nowhere because I'll likely apply those arguments where I think they belong (and I think that's probably true for all judges in general). **
 * There are two exceptions to the offense/defense paradigm for me--
 * Also know that non-topical aff's aren't the same as the K on the neg-- the negative is likely to win a risk of a link on a K, for example.

2. If I don't have impact calculus to influence how I start my decision, I will then likely default to uniqueness questions. If the economy is doing really well right now, it makes sense to me that the chances your economy impact actually occurs is super low. I usually think uniqueness questions make more sense to attack than link questions (although obvi you should be attacking an argument on all levels) and yes, this includes kritiks (IE how does the alternative on the cap K overwhelm the all-encompassing structure of systems of capitalism now? If capitalism is already pervasive and incredibly violent, why does the aff make that system worse? Basically, I find myself persuaded by aff arguments that there's no unique difference between the aff and the squo that makes a K impact worse). 3. Edited (11/23/14)-- I used to hate being called judge (physically cringe at it). While I still don't like being called judge, it doesn't bother me as much as it used to. The reason I don't like it is because a lot of debaters use it as a crutch word which is kinda sadface. I still don't think you should have to reference me in your speech, but if you do, just call me Nick. 4. Edited (1/14/2015)-- I used to have a section here about how I hate gendered language. I'm still generally against it, but I'm less likely to be as curmudgeonly about it as I used to. Make it a voter if you want to make it a voter. I'll listen to it and vote on it if you win it, but don't expect me to auto-vote for you because the other team said the F word. 5. A dropped argument is a true argument, but if you don't impact it out, I won't vote on it. I once judged a debate where the 1AR completely dropped a disad, but the 2NR didn't even extend an impact, so I voted aff on case outweighs.

6. If an argument is dropped, I have a lower threshold for good impact calculus/extension of the argument.

7. People refer to me as more of a policy debater, but do not let that deter you from running kritiks. I will vote on any argument as long as it's explained and impacted properly. I am a philosophy and communication studies major at JMU, so I have some read some kritikal literature. I am decently familiar with lit regarding feminism, Butler, and basic kritiks like capitalism and security. White high theory (Deleuze, Baudrillard, Nietzsche) probably aren't the best args in front of me. That being said, I believe that it is my job as a judge to adjudicate to the best of my ability based on the arguments ran in the debate. If Lacan is your thing, go for it, and I will do my best to understand what you are saying. Just know you're going to have to explain the argument pretty well. I'm more likely to understand your argument if it's explained through the impact/why I should vote for it. I can be persuaded that a K outweighs the aff even if the alt doesn't solve the aff (see #1/2). Part of this "I'm a policy debater" thing means two things-- 1) I love the politics disad. Do it well and I'll be super happy and 2) I'll likely want to read your cards after the debate, especially if I think you have not done sufficient comparison between the two sets of evidence presented or if you haven't made an argument about why I shouldn't call for cards (which would be silly and make me sad but if you win it then I'll listen). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">8. More specific note on the K-- after getting what I think were some frustrating decisions as a debater against the K, I've reallized that I'm really unlikely to understand or fill in blanks on the K unless there's virtually zero discussion about that blank from the aff. That's relevant for your K tricks/alt solves the aff style args. It's not enough to have a 10 second explanation of why your alt radically alters politics and that means the harms of the 1AC go away-- you need to explain that in the context of the affirmative's particular impact and/or internal link claims and in the context of the impact to your K. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">9. Impact calculus with the K plz. I have such a limited understanding of what the term "ressentiment" means or why it would outweigh total planetary extinction that you seriously need to explain that. 2NRs on the K that include case debate (with some level of internal link/impact defense; not just your security K cards on case) are substantially more persuasive to me.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">10. Framework-- Love it. I think that fairness/limits is an impact and is an important standard in T debates. I'm still down with you impact turning framework/education coming first/other arguments against framework. As with most of the rest of my philosophy, I can be persuaded to think otherwise; I also think my voting record is slightly in favor of non-topical affs when the 2NR was framework. I also think topical version is incredibly important and, if done correctly, should be used to hedge against most of the offense against framework. T and/or framework is not genocide, nor is it ever rape, nor is it real literal violence against you or anyone else. I am unlikely to be persuaded by 2AR grandstanding ("omg I can't believe they'd ever say T against us") against 2NRs who go for T/framework. Just make arguments instead. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Aff framework/neg K framework stuff-- hard-line "you don't get a K"-style args and "you can't weigh the aff against the K"-style args are equally silly. You can win a meta-framing question that resolves every other question in the debate in front of me (IE epistemology/discourse first, roleplaying bad, etc) but it's certainly possible that I don't pick up on those args unless they're explicitly flagged and applied on the line-by-line (see "more specific note on the K" section). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">11. Affs that discuss identity, when done well, are awesome and really fun to watch. Affs that discuss identity, when done poorly, make me really sad. These debates are where I vary the most on my speaker point scale, mostly because there seems to be a large discrepancy between good and bad identity teams. You can probably expect to get either really high speaker points or really low speaker points in these debates (although this isn't set in stone). You should think about this in terms of my thoughts on framework.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">12. I look at theory like a disad-- the standards are the impacts. You should do impact calculus with the standards. However, most of the time, I think that theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team (although this obviously doesn't apply to condo). I've been a 2N for the majority of my debate career but I generally lean slightly aff on CP theory, except for condo. Counterplans that don't have solvency advocates probably aren't okay, counterplans that use aff evidence as solvency advocates are almost definitely okay. Literature should probably drive these debates. I'm starting to think that uniqueness CPs are really strategic. My completely arbitrary brightline for the number of condiitonal positions that I generally think is acceptable is two, but you can win conditionality is bad when a team is only reading two positions; alternatively, you can win conditionality is good when you're reading more than 2 positions.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">13. Case debate-- it needs to be well developed and no one really seems to want to do that. I am substantially more persuaded by a 2NR that goes for a few take outs to an aff's advantage than the "death by a thousand cuts" strategy. However, the sillier the advantage, the more likely it is that I'll buy your death by a thousand cuts strategy. You should make logical extrapolations that take out the internal link chains and make me question how the advantage makes sense. The block should read more ev on case and actually spend time developing those arguments to win them. I'm honestly not sure if I think that a case 2NR has to have impact defense or not; that's something that should probably be left up to the debaters. Affs-- 2NR that don't do well-developed case debate are generally overwhelmed by your "try or die"/"case outweighs"/"1% chance of solvency" args. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">14. I will vote on cheapshots if they're impacted properly, although the bar for sufficient impact calculus on cheap shots is much higher than for non-cheap shots/well-developed arguments. That includes quick/silly theory args and K tricks.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">15. I am very flowcentric. This is probably the only place that I'll intervene. Do not ask me to not flow, because I probably won't listen to you. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated and less likely to buy new extrapolations of arguments. Your speaker points will definitely drop if you don't do line-by-line.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">16. I try to not have facial expressions when judging, but I'm awful at controlling them. If you see me frowning at you or furrowing my brow during your speech, something is confusing me or seems wrong. If you see me throw my hands up or fold my arms like I'm not flowing, then you're really doing something wrong. I seem to look up and tilt my head to its side when I'm trying to comprehend what you said.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">17. I'll laugh at jokes made in the debate, and generally have a higher threshold for meanness in cross-x than a lot of people do. That being said, don't be an asshole. I will award up to half an extra speaker point for Pokemon jokes, but only if they're sufficiently terrible or good (I've only ever judged two debaters who have done this successfully).

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Ultimately, remember that you are the debaters and that I will listen to any argument. Do sufficient impact calculus and you'll probably win my ballot.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Some short notes/thoughts on speaker points (this is definitely still a work in progress; I moderate my speaks depending on the division/where I'm judging/etc)--

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">30-- Seriously, it's impossible for you to have been better.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">29.5-- Top 5 speakers worthy

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">29-- Top 5-10 speaker worthy

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">28.8-- You should get a speaker award

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">28.5-- Definitely deserve to clear, probably a middle of the bracket team

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">28-- Some structural issues that need to be hashed out

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">27.5-- Decent amount of structural issues

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">27-- You're okay

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">26.5-- Serious structural issues

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">26 (or less)-- I'm frustrated with you and you have serious structural issues.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I will award 25s or less for people being offensive (see gendered language comment; otherwise any offensive language. Curse words don't count as offensive language, although excess cursing may fall into this category).

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins, or send me an email at NJL1994@gmail.com. I'm also happy to answer any questions about the debate after it occurs.