Olson

Nat Olson: University of Iowa Highland Park Senior High School (MN)

Don't radically change the way you usually debate to please me. I would prefer that you choose to advance your strongest arguments, than to attempt something you're weak at pulling off because you think I'm only receptive to certain types of argument.

I debated for 4 years at Highland Park in St. Paul, MN and I currently debate at the University of Iowa. In High School I consistently debated on the national circuit so I’m probably familiar with any position you care to run. I am a FLOW JUDGE. I evaluate dropped arguments first, and give them 100% weight in my decision-making calculus.

I also (maybe it’s the MN spirit in me) believe that debate can and should be a kind activity. You can make your point about someone’s evidence being bad or their argument not making sense without making them feel bad about themselves or being nasty in CX.

Finally, the rules of debate are debatable. I will not allow you to violate speech times, side constraints, or break laws, but aside from that do what you need to do. Politics and a PIC. OK. Play Rap music over speakers and read clubbing baby seals good? I’m game. It is your job to explain to me how I evaluate the arguments in the round and why yours should come first but I have no real biases otherwise.

Please let your opponent talk when you’re CX’ing them. I hate it when people use CX as an extra speech and avoid asking questions. Humor is always appreciated. CX is binding. Tag-team is fine, but you risk making your partner look like an incompetent jackass if you are too upfront.
 * Cross-X:**


 * Speaker Points:**

25- You struggle with key concepts such as sign-posting and line-by-line debating. Strategic decisions lack understanding and are poorly made. This is also reserved for debaters who are highly rude to either their partner or their opponents. 26- Worse than average 27- Average 28- Better than average 28.5- You did an excellent job in this round and I think you should win a speaker award if this is a consistent performance. 29- You have done everything right in this debate. You should have answered all arguments effectively and efficiently, sounded good, and made excellent strategic decisions. 29.5- I think you are clearly the top speaker at the tournament. You did all the things in the 29 category and probably something else to distinguish yourself. 30- The voice of God.


 * Offensive Arguments:**

I ran a ‘Give Poison Drugs to Africans’ aff my senior year and then read Nietzsche cards. I don’t think that there’s anything that I won’t vote on from a moral standpoint. Patriarchy good, rape good, racism good, I’ll vote on them, but if the other side points out that they are, in fact, retarded, then I might be inclined to agree.


 * DA’s:** It’s a DA, it’s fine. I was and remain a 2A, so I have a hate of DA’s without internal links. I think that this is where the offense/defense paradigm is retarded. If you like reading a DA with no IL, or a link card not talking about the aff, then you might not want to pref me high. *NOTE: If the other side concedes your evidence, I DO NOT believe that it is my job to indict your evidence. If they concede your link, you win the link, regardless of what your card says. It is your job to indict the other side’s evidence, not my job to do it for you.

If you are confident that the other side does not have a crucial component to their argument, such as internal link evidence, you should extend these arguments. I believe in 100% defense. You can win a 0% risk of the DA if you try hard enough.

Impact calculus on DA’s is VERY IMPORTANT, especially in later speeches. DA turns/solves the case can be damning arguments if dropped.


 * CP & CP Theory:** Fine. In terms of theory debate, everything is debatable. I went for conditionality bad A LOT in High School and won a lot of debates on it. This does not mean I think that it’s an unbeatable argument. In fact, I think that the aff is probably behind on most theory debates because of block advantage for the neg. If you are going to go for theory in the 2AR then you should be sure that you’ve answered EVERY neg argument, or you’ll probably lose.


 * Topicality:** Fine. I don’t require in-round abuse to vote on T, but if you don’t have any then you need reasons why it’s still a voter, such as jurisdiction or potential abuse.

-	Why the aff doesn’t matter (K o/w, impact constructed, ect.) -	Why the alt solves the case, K impacts, ect. -	The link
 * K’s:** My partner and I ran the K pretty much exclusively in High School (Nietzsche), so I understand the strategic utility of the K. Obviously, K literature is more dense than a politics/agent CP lit, and therefore requires greater explanation. As Jenny Heidt always put it: K’s are a big Nonunique DA with a uniqueness (and often Utopian) CP. A good K debater will do the following: Explain,

If you make the debate enjoyable for me to watch, your speaks will rise, and your ethos will increase. Debate with passion or at least excitement, and make my life easy. I’m just another college freshman judging for beer money, so make my life easy. Quid Pro Quo Clarice…