Nierman,+Ryan

Judge's Name: Nierman, Ryan High School Graduation Date: 2007 Judge's e-mail: ryannierman@gmail.com Experience: - Coach a team - High School debater - College debater - Frequently Judge Rounds Judged this topic: 32 Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 5 Fast Quantity of Arguments: 5 Many Topicality: 3 Moderately Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 1 acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 2 usually acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: I debated for Groves High School for two years, U of M - Dearborn for one year, and I debated for U of M - Ann Arbor for one year. This is my sixth year coaching at Wylie E. Groves High School, where I am currently Co-Director of Debate.

Speed: Speed is not a problem so long as you remain clear.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. This doesn't mean that one should merely reread their 1NC shell. There needs to be specific explanations of your standards and why they are better than the aff's or vice versa. Why does one standard give a better internal link to education or fairness than another, etc? Finally, I tend to default to competing interpretations when evaluating T debates.

CPs: I am willing to listen to any type of CP and multiple counterplans in the same round. I also try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next.

Disads: There should be a clear link to the aff. The overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line. Leave the overview for impact analysis. If the aff drops a DA or drops the internal links and/or uniqueness debate, I consider those to be won by the negative, so there is no reason to go through every card that was read in the 1NC - do what you need to do to win the flow and move on.

Kritiks: I enjoy a good kritik debate. Having said that, you shouldn't run the K just because I am judging. If you decided to read the K, make sure that there is a clear link to the aff. This may include reading new link scenarios in the block. There should also be a clear explanation of the impact with specific impact analysis. For the alternative debate, this is where some time needs to be spent. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the world of the alternative look like? And finally, who does the alternative? I believe the way in which framework functions in a round is up for debate, but if there is no clear explanation, framework is typically a reason why the aff gets to weigh their impacts, but not necessarily a voting issue. The neg should also isolate a clear f/w - why does methodology, ontology, reps, discourse, etc. come first? Typically, unless the aff reads f/w in the 1AC, this f/w may be read in the block.

Theory: I don't lean any particular way on the theory debate. For me, a theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. If this happens, I will not evaluate the theory debate, as there is a lack of clash and educational value. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If you don't do this, then it will be hard to pick me up on the theory debate. Having said that, if there are dropped independent voters on the theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Finally, there should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance: While I am not as familiar with this type of debate, this doesn't mean that I am not willing to listen and vote for it. If you win the framework debate, then you have a good chance at winning. Having said that, I will have a higher inclination to vote for you if you make your performative action germane to the topic.

Paperless Debate: I try to give the paperless teams the benefit of the doubt should a computer issue occur. I do not take prep time for flashing, but don't use this as an excuse to steal prep.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get less than stellar speaker points.

Finally, don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Ethics Statement: Agree