Jennings,+Nicholas


 * History Debated at Crosby High School from 2004-2008 and at the university of Houston from 2011-2015, Crosby High School Debate Coach 2015-2017**


 * Updated October 11, 2017**

__**So I just nuked this Wiki because the information was outdated.**__

=__**Policy Debate:**__=

I have voted for almost every type of aff that exist minus silly affs that have nothing to do with anything and don't have an solid literature base.

__**Affs:**__ So it's been a while but i'm sure I can still flow good solid policy affs that want to provide a core of the resolution justification for changing education policy. Like I said it's been a while, I tend to watch debates that involve more critical approaches to the topic as well as affs that are only tangentially about the topic. I'd love to see more old school policy debates but alas I don't have a huge preference on your affirmative style and find each interesting and fun to adjudicate.

__**Framework**__: Framework is an argument just like anything else if you say things are unfair and they argue that fairness is roundly prejudiced then your probably not going to win my ballot. That being said in the framework debate I tend to find what types of educations are developed and explored more interesting then generic fairness considerations. I also find that affirmatives are poor at explaining why the framework interpretation cannot solve most of their offense. Conversely I find negatives typically wanting in a meaningful explanation of why the affirmative can be done in another way and still maintain the core of its argument. To me these tend to be core concerns in framework debates.

__**Counter-plans**__: I don't have a list of counter-plans i think of as cheating, i don't have a proclivity for pulling the trigger on small blipy counter-plan type X is bad arguments. If you want to go for a type of counter-plan is illegitimate then you need to do so in an invested way. I like counter-plan debates a lot and feel this is a lost art.

__**Conditionality**__: I haven't be persuaded in about 3 years that conditionality is unfair for the aff (in policy debate.) I have been persuaded that it might be privileged to run multiple conflicting arguments.

=__LD Debate:__=

I think of LD very differently than i have in the past. Probably due to coaching it more and judging it a lot more.

I have no issues deliberating between a traditional and non-traditional approach to LD, Theory arguments have a place in LD, and largely I'm okay with adjudicating these differences.

Policy ish AFF's. Lets get passed the fact that theirs no should statement in LD. More and more the topics are becoming extremely action focused. I'm fine with you defending implementation or even doing the this would be a good idea to implement. I don't know why you get to not defend the whole resolution, and I feel you can give an example of the resolution as good but that might not prove the resolution Good/Bad. That's some rambling but lets be specific shall we.

I teach and have watched lots of traditional Value/Criterion debates that are about the ethical morality of a topic. These are fine and I have no issue judging these rounds but they typically come down to a standards and value/criterion debate.

Policy Affs: I feel even if you parametricize the resolution you have to defend the whole resolution as good. Maybe this is just me but i think the topics are small enough that you should be able to defend it in its entirety.

Critiques: I evaluate critiques on a methodological level most the time, does the methodology of the aff have an issue if so what pedagogies are problematic and how does the alternative deal with those (normally) dominate pedagogies. Does the form the aff take represent a problem. Should we be debating about this particular issue? These sorts of claims are to be addressed by both sides.

Policy ish stuff: Counter-plans don't make a lot of sense to me in LD, unless they are advantage counter-plans or another untopical counter-plan. I especially think PIC's don't prove the aff is a bad idea if we think of the debate as a whole resolution. Basically I'd suggest only reading untopical CP's in front of me.

DA's those are fine but if the aff doesn't defend implementation you might have a hard time getting a link.