Sanford,+JD


 * Name** - JD Sanford
 * Affiliations** - Jack C. Hays High School, Anderson High School

History - My background is in CX. I debated for four years at Hays, qualified for TFA state twice and got to Octos once, qualified for NFLs once. I debated at Texas for my freshman and sophomore years of college, I am a debate coach at Anderson.

I have one important rule for judging- if I do not understand an argument I will not vote for it. This logically is meant to avoid evaluating "The sky is blue, that means a neg ballot" but this has gotten to be a bigger issue for me with the proliferation of arbitrary word PICs. I have absolutely no problem with PICs or any other sort of advocacy that wins with a marginal net benefit, but if I can't understand that net benefit at all, I will have no problem voting aff on 100% defense. I'm not stupid, you don't need to worry about your K going over my head. If it makes sense to you, it'll probably make sense to me.

General presentation preferences - I like debaters to be nice to each other. We're all wasting a weekend together, we might as well have some fun and get along.

Topicality - I like it. I view topicality almost exclusively as a game of competing interpretations, but reasonability will sway my ballot some if the aff can compellingly argue that the neg's interp is actually an arbitrary exclusion. I have no problems with critiques of topicality, but if you really want me to dig them, they need to be specific to the advocacy of your 1AC, not just generic silencing cards.

Disads - It's hard for me to not like them, not much to say here.

Case Debate - I love it when it is very specific to the aff. Nonspecific case debate is fine, but nothing too exciting.

Counterplans - In terms of what will entertain me more, the more abusive the better. That isn't to say you won't lose on theory, but I'm someone who for a while made a career off of PICs and Delay counterplans, so I'll definitely dig whatever sketchyness you can put together as long as it makes sense.

Theory - This is a fine way to win, but If you want me to vote on theory the following things need to happen-1. Have an interpretation. 2. Clearly, and in an in depth manner answer the blocks of the other team as well as answering your own. 3. Go slower here than you normally would. 4. Go heavy on it early on. I will vote on theory, but it just takes a bit of work to get me to go from "the argument is unfair, don't allow it" to "the argument is unfair, vote the other team down for making it."

Critiques - During my last two years of debate I ran almost exclusively critical arguments. I think it's fair to say that I will if nothing else be more entertained by a critical debate than any other kind of debate. I'd like to think that I know, know of, or am very capable of knowing whatever critique you want to read in front of me. Just make sure that the critique does make sense, and do a good job of explaining the framework for the K. Is the K a competing ideology that I should weigh over the case? Or are the impacts of the K centered around how the people in the room view the world? Is it some combination? You should make it clear to me if you want me to be happy with voting for you. Some arguments that I've historically run/bounced around are Heidegger, Baudrillard, Butler, Dedevelopment/primitivism, Biopower, Nietzsche, and language critiques. Critical Affs - I love 'em, run 'em, and will probably enjoy them more than traditional affirmatives.

LD - I view LD as a game of competing moral frameworks until told otherwise. I decide which value has won as being the value for the round, and then I vote based on which case/off case arguments access this value best. If you want me to vote for something that is not a value, you need to tell me how that argument interacts with the value and why I prefer it over the typical framework. I am okay with all LD arguments as long as they are warranted. Tragically, most LD theory arguments or burdens are not warranted, but rather are two-second assertions put inside of a case. If you want theory to be a voter for me, there needs to be an impact (such as fairness or education).

I am fine with critiques in LD, fine with speed, fine with plans/counterplans. However, my CX background does not mean that I prefer plans or counterplans or whatever else from CX. I think that a plan in LD still has to win why their alternate way of addressing the resolution is good.