Lamothe,+Jordan

Updated 2/15/2012

I graduated from The Meadows in 2010 and am currently coaching there and for Presentation HS now. I feel comfortable flowing most speeds and will say Clear if you are becoming unclear. If you have a paragraph of analytics in your framework please slowdown or at least make it clear where one argument starts and another ends with something like numbers. If i miss a blip in the framework when you read the 1AC that magically precludes the NC in the 1AR I'm going to very hesitant to grant you that argument.

I need any argument to be extended in full if you want me to evaluate it. "Extend contention 1" is not extending. You must reiterate the claim warrant and impact if you want the argument considered. When extending arguments, please weigh as well. If neither debater tells me which arguments are the most important I'll have to make those comparisons myself.

I'll use whatever decision calculus is decided upon in round. While I'm not predisposed to accept any particular framework, i feel most comfortable evaluating the substance of consequentialist/util/ policy-making debates. If the framework debate is messy I'll spend a lot of time trying to sort it out and will almost always find a reason to prefer one framework over the other based on arguments made in round. But, in the unlikely case that both frameworks are unusable or unextended for whatever reason, I will default to a net benefits framework to evaluate the round. That can be easily avoided by just making the framework debate clear for me.

I've come to realize that you can run any type of argument in front of me and I will evaluate it. I like plans, counterplans, and disads alot. I like critical arguments but am not particularly familiar with that literature so you'll have to explain the argument well for me to understand it enough to vote on. If you intentionally make the debate confusing (with any position) by refusing to clarify it when asked in CX or waiting until your last speech to explain how it functions, not only will I not know what your case says and most likely disregard it, you will also lose speaker points.

I'm fine with debaters running theory whenever they see fit. However, I would much rather see a substantive debate than a theory debate and feel far more comfortable evaluating a substance debate than a theory debate. While you're free to run theory whenever you want, I give lots of credence to "I meet" arguments when shells seem silly. A few other theory related things:

-Fairness is important. You can argue why it's only a reason to reject the arg instead out the debater but I assume it is relevant -I'll vote on potential abuse if you win that it's a voter but i prefer actual abuse over potential abuse when weighing. -I default to a comparing world views interpretation of the resolution when the topic makes that interpretation appropriate, unless a debater argues that i should approach the round differently. When a comparing worlds approach is viable, I am biased away from truth testing. That doesn't mean i won't use truth-testing if someone is winning the theory debate clearly but it does mean it will be hard for you to win that debate clearly. That said, I don't think any non-consequentilist standard is necessarily truth testing so please do not interpret this as a reluctance to accept certain ethical frameworks.