Nimkar,+Kuleen


 * Coach, Rhode Island Urban Debate League**
 * Strikes**: Juanita Sanchez Education Complex, LaSalle Academy

General Judging Style:

I will judge and vote off of pretty much any clearly reasoned and impacted argumentation. That being said, I've got some slight predispositions regarding certain strats which you should know. However, I have no problems voting against these tendencies if you make a good case to do so. My paradigm shouldn't change your strat, you should still go for what you do best, but it will hopefully tell you how to fine-tune your strat to my preferences.

NOTE: I simply will not vote on nonsense like Debate Bad, and no matter what you say, I will adhere to the time limits.

Speed: I'll yell "slower" or "clear" whenever I feel that I need it. (which might be more frequently than you're used to, because I'm a little rusty)

Disads: I think teams needs to more critically examine the magnitude of the uniqueness vs the link. If the uniqueness story is pretty strong, then figure out if the link has the magnitude to change that state of affairs. Similarly, if it's more of a brink story, then negs need to be clear on why the brink is now/how it's different from the world with the plan.

Ks: I'm not necessarily the best judge for K teams. I tend to think the K is on the losing side of the debate on Alt solvency, and has a hard time proving why K discussion should be preferred to policy discussion. I also think undercovering perms hurts a lot of K teams, so be sure to clearly refute them. Outside of biopower and the Cap K, my familiarity with K literature is pretty weak, so either go slowly on the cards, or preferably just explain how your K works after going through the shell.

Procedurals: I have a fairly high threshold for theory in general, so do not expect me to vote on the blippy 5 word theory args that constitute so many theory blocks. If you're expecting me to vote on it, spend a good deal of time explaining the abuse and why I vote on it.

Misc: -QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: You do not, and in many cases should not even try to, win every argument. Explain why you access the one or few arguments you're going for, and then explain why they matter more than anything else in round. That's all you need. (On a related note: It annoys me, and will cost you speaks, if you insist that you're somehow winning every argument in the round when it's obvious you're not. Be realistic about what's working for you in round and then go for that)

- Analytics are your friend.

- I think more debaters should use strong defense. If you make a good case for it, I have no problems granting that there is 0 probability of an impact occurring. Similarly, don't expect to get much out of saying "any risk of the link" if you're clearly unable to respond to the defense on the flow.

- Explain why your extensions matter/why I should prefer your cards. Too many teams just extend stuff and read blocks without making it clear why they matter/why I should prefer their analysis/extensions over what the other team is reading. You do not want to leave the responsibility of resolving these issues to me, because chances are I'll screw it up.