Nikolai,+Peter

Peter Nikolai Saint Paul Central High School

I am non-judgmental about your strategy if it is competitive. I generally vote for the team that has the better, memorable, more correct framing issue in the debate.

Stuff you care about if you are looking to pref me:

The K -- I'm in an open relationship with the K. I know more about Foucault and Marx than I do about Lacan and Derrida. I get the feeling that some label me as a mark for the K, but I am just a mark for a well explained alt that confronts how the alt interacts with the K's external impact and/or the aff's impacts. I am also a mark for a well explained permutation.

Framework vs. Performance -- This debate should focus on participation, and maximizing the benefits of the game of debate. I'm not sure whether plan/resolution-focused debate is better or worse for participation, but performance-focused debates have anecdotally proven to increase participation of traditionally neglected populations. I guess what I am trying to say is I haven't figured out yet what the best framework should be for debate, so I'll leave it up to you to persuade me.

Framework vs. the K -- Just debate it. I can't imagine voting aff if the neg wins the K links, outweighs and turns the case, and the alt is competitive with the aff, but there are an infinite number of Ks or K debate is hard. Conversely, if the aff wins that the alt is not competitive with the aff, I can't imagine voting neg.

Performance -- Sure. If you play a song, rap, dance, or whatever, I think that should be in the final rebuttal -- in the same way that a policy aff should be talking about the plan and the solvency in the final rebuttal. Also, I prefer narrower affs that address a specific issue than an aff that makes sweeping claims.

Counterplans -- Since I think your strategy should compete, if you are aff and you hit consult, Lopez, condition, or a counterplan that competes on certainty, focus on the perm. If you are negative and you read consult, Lopez or a certainty counterplan, you better have the goods on the perm, and don't over-rely on tech vs. truth.

Disads -- Yeah, they can be a reason to vote negative.

Topicality -- Competing interpretations is probably the better way to evaluate T debates, but sometimes reasonability solves the neg's offense. Persuade me.

5 things that will affect your speaker points and my desire to vote for you:

1. Poor to non-existent signposting and organization. Signposting and organization are extremely important to me, and I reward organization with speaker points. I find it annoying when teams ignore the line by line, and are really imprecise in what arguments they are extending or responding to. I also dislike when you do not clearly delineate two different arguments. For instance, if you use "and" to indicate you are making a new argument, you need to either emphasize the word, pause, or use some other means to indicate you are making a new argument. I also get confused when you respond to an argument on your opponent's frontline block that they didn't read (i.e., you should flow).

2. Excessive or unnecessary prompting. Prompting should be rare and efficient. Each debater should ask and answer her own cross-ex questions. If you prompt your partner every speech, I will deduct your speaker points.

3. Disrespecting the room. If I see you disrespecting a room (i.e., messing around with classroom equipment, eating food and not cleaning up afterwards, unplugging electrical equipment, etc.) you and your partner will get an automatic 26s.

4. Needless theory debates.

5. Swearing. Intentional, repetitive swearing will result in a cap of a 27,5. You don't need to edit evidence to remove swearing (although you should), but if you, the debater likes to swear in rounds cuz you think its cool: (a) it's not; (b) don't.

Here are some procedural things/Quirks

1. Paperless teams, prep time stops when you pull the jump drive from your laptop. 2. I might interact during the debate. If I am not following you or don't understand you, I will let you know. If your prompting get so bad, I will shush the prompting debater. 3. While I do call for evidence at the end of the debate, if you debate like I won't you'll get higher speaker points and I will be dissuaded to call for cards I might otherwise ask to see. 4. Ethics. I won't make a //sua sponte// charge of clipping. I will need an audio recording in order to resolve a clipping accusation.Both debaters on a team have to agree to make an ethics charge. The ethics charge will decide the round, and there will be no other issue heard.

There used to be some funny stuff here, check the history if you want to read it.