Challinor,+Jackson

=**Jackson Challinor**=
 * Niles West High School - Ohio Valley 2014**

2013-14: Juan Diego Catholic High School (UT) - Assistant Coach 2012-13: Niles West High School (IL) - Assistant Coach 2008-12: New Trier High School (IL) - Debater


 * Philosophy:**

__Top Level__

There are three things that I presume will/should occur going into the debate round and will enforce barring rare (but not inconceivable) circumstances:

1) Speech times are as described by the tournament.

2) Someone has to win.

3) Each person should be assigned speaker points (Range of 24-30 - barring a breach of etiquette).

Beyond that, I'm too apathetic about your specific round to let my opinions alter the decision. At the end of the round I compare warrants on every flow, decide the outcome of individual parts of the debate, and use framing arguments made by both sides to decide which arguments determine who wins or loses the debate. I don't call for evidence unless there is a dispute about what it says, so get your debating done during the debate.

__Specifics__

Affs - Strong advantages beat obscure ones with shady internal links most of the time. Except maybe on this topic. I monitor new 2AR arguments extremely closely **//__when the theoretical objection is in the 2NR__//** (Take the hint, negative team) and often find myself disregarding a large portion of the 2AR. But do not fret, as long as your analysis is an extrapolation of a warrant that was present in the 1AR, you and I won't have any awkward discussions afterwards.

DAs - Framing makes the difference between a 28 and a 29 - and not just impact calc.

CPs - Frame the solvency debate in relation to the DA. I don't have any vendettas against any abusive stuff.

Ks - I'm very familiar with most of the literature. I won't vote you down because you ran something weird. I won't vote for you because you ran something weird. Topic-specific is good but not necessary. Framing is almost always the most important part of the debate. If you think the perm double bind makes sense then we aren't going to agree unless the K has a weird framing interpretation or you win the framework debate.

Theory/T - No opinion. Be as abusive as you want as long as you can still justify it, but as Walter White says: "tread lightly". Performative contradictions bad theory might be worse than pen spec, just sayin'.

Non-Traditional Debate - No more ridiculous than the Embargo aff, probably less-so. Just because I empathize with you doesn't mean I ignore theoretical questions. There is literally no level of a-typicality that I would go so far as to label "wrong forum" or feel the slightest aversion towards voting for (except for the three points listed at the top) - so pull out all the stops if you're scanning this philosophy for the go-ahead to do so. I leave my own ideological positions at the door and have no problem adapting my judging calculus to how you want me to view the debate, but you of course need to win that doing so would be better than whatever interpretation the other side ends up defending. Opposing side: impact the T/FW debate if you choose to read/extend the argument (more than "but ground is good, judge") or I will obliterate your speaker points and feel exactly nothing. Also - clashing with the case is far more interesting than anything Shively ever wrote; I have no idea why framework is consistently the only 2NR choice I see in these rounds. That being said, I am an equally good judge for framework as I am for any other argument, but you need to execute as I will do none of the work for you. Be extremely wary when combining derivatives of both structuralist and post-structuralist literature in the same strategy - a good opponent will use this against you (Note: this applies to both sides).

My "Ideal Debate" - Anything stylistically interesting (intricate DAs/CPs, hyper-specific case strategies, a nuanced T violation, a theory debate with very tailored analysis, a kritik that accesses strategic and/or intellectual depth [post-structuralism > structuralism, usually], performance [especially where I don't expect it], project teams that innovate within their genre of argumentation, strategies that warp the rules of debate itself, and really any argument that makes me think: "wow, I've never seen that before"), but above all you need to execute whatever argument you choose with expert analysis and strategic efficiency. If you meet these three criteria I will give you a 30 without hesitation because it means I will have enjoyed the debate - and that's a rare and beautiful thing.

Paperless - Prep ends when you stop working. Don't abuse this, it's obvious when you do and I will kill your speaks. If the other team requests a viewing laptop you are required to provide one or you cannot debate paperless, no exceptions.

Etiquette - Don't care unless a debater is attempting to cause severe emotional pain to another, then I will intervene. Aggressively racist/sexist/homophobic remarks will result in lower speaker points, but will not affect the decision unless utilized by the opposing team to such an end.

Cheating - Don't do it. Overt cheating will result in lower speaker points but will not affect the decision unless utilized by the opposing team to such an end.

Speaker Points - I base the count on three criteria listed in the order of most important to least: Quality of Analysis, Strategic Vision, and Cross-ex Questions/Responses. I assign points after each debater has given their final speech so that the decision does not affect the result.

Final Word - Don't take this debate so seriously; in a few years you won't remember any of it.

PS: I flow cross-ex

---

// Si quelqu'un veut un mouton, c'est la preuve qu'il en existe un. //

// Classification of fantasy and reality is itself a fantasy that humans created...Life begins when you make a disctinction between yourself and others. From that moment on, the world becomes a stage for the story in which you are the main character. All humans live in a fantasy in which they are the main character. But the world doesn't recognize you as the main character at all. What nonsense. Everyone lives their entire life tormented by this confusion. There's only one way out of this hell. To place yourself in a postion that is neither the main character nor a supporting role. In other words, the Author. // //- Some Guy//


 * __Round Decision Statistics:__**

Given back the land: 1

Not-given back the land: 83


 * 1) dolphinwolves4lyfe