Blanchette,+Nick

Mercer Island '11 Colorado College '15

I debated at Mercer Island High School (WA), graduating in 2011. I currently debate NPDA parli at Colorado College and have coached students on and off over the last four years.

Short Version: Basically, I will do my best to evaluate the round as objectively as possible. As a judge, I like to see debaters approach the round from their own perspectives, and will thus evaluate any presented arguments within the round's given decision calculus. In cases in which debaters are unclear or don't approach key issues, I have a couple of default frameworks for evaluating different arguments. However, all of these are contestable.

Speed is fine. Theory is fine. I'm happy to evaluate RVIs, as well as 'progressive' arguments. Clarity is really key for me--It's probably in your best interest to label arguments clearly and really flesh out your extensions. I will disclose my decision and am happy to explain my reasons, but I’d appreciate it if you would let me get through it before asking questions.

'Long' Version: Again, these are just defaults/slight preferences.

Presentational stuff: - I don't mind if you sit/stand -I don't mind what you're wearing -Computers are fine (Efficiency with the flashing process is appreciated)

Frameworks: Be clear with what your preempts/spikes exclude. Label your arguments in the framework. Standards should probably be comparative and sufficient.

Theory: Absent argumentation, I probably default to competing interpretations. Be sure to flesh out your reasonability claims if that's what you choose to go for. My default view is that Fairness outweighs education, but feel free to challenge that. I'd prefer if shells are in a clearly labeled format (A, B, C, D)... this is mostly for the sake of flowing/ keeping the round tidy- I'll give lenience in answering non-structured/on-case shells as a result. I'll vote off of potential abuse if the argument's won. I'll vote off RVIs if the argument's won.

CX: -CX is binding - Answer questions- Being intentionally vague/around-the-bush will probably hurt your speaks - Be nice

Ks:I'm fine with kritikal arguments. Be very clear with your tags. There's an awful tendency with K's to powertag a card before launching into an excerpt of a nonsensical french theorist (don't do that). Be explicit on the framework level of the K in explaining how it interacts iwth the other arguments in the round. K's should probably have an alt/solvency mechanism.

Getting good speaks: -Good technical debate: If you're solid with your weighing, comparisons and extensions.. you're probably on your way to high speaks -Nuanced strategies: I'm definitely down to reward positions that break the mould. -Gutsy/Risky strategic choices: It's always more interesting to watch someone spend 4 minutes on the perm in the 1ar or going all in on theory. I'll reward you accordingly. -Good round vision: Knowing what you need to do to win (knowing when to collapse etc.) -CX clarity

This was all written fairly quickly... so it's definitely possible that I missed out on some stuff. If you have any specific question feel free to message me before rounds on facebook or through email (nicholas.blanchette@coloradocollege.edu) Have fun!