Jones,+Evan

Evan Jones --- Updated September 2014

I debated at Sioux Falls Lincoln for 4 years in South Dakota. Don’t let me being from South Dakota scare you away. My senior year I acquired two bids, qualified to the TOC and ended with a winning record, and, if it matters, won CFLs and was 8th at NFLs. I am now a junior and in my third year debating at UMKC. I rarely make it back to high school debate except for the Midwestern December tournaments (Dowling/Blake) where coach for Sioux Falls Roosevelt, so my topic knowledge is scarce.
 * General Background –**

I mainly did politics and case in high school but in college have shifted to also include k’s as a major (if not exclusive) part of my strategy. I’d prefer if strategies be specific, not just a link that mentions the topic area the aff uses, but a highly specific case debate/cp/k/what-have-you. No, I haven’t read the literature on your obscure k, so explain it a bit if it isn't mainstream (or even if it isn't...). I’m fine on voting on T. I’m fine with voting on case defense, I’m even fine on voting on inherency. If you beat the team on the argument __and prove its a reason to vote,__ you’ll win the round.
 * Cliff notes –**

__**I'm terrible at flowing, slow down and you'll be happier with the decision.**__ (In general I do feel like there is a crisis of clarity in debate, don't peg me as an anti-speed judge, but in some debates I've judged I feel like I just fall behind in comprehension. I'll try my best to let you know if you are going to fast, but after a few times I'll show no sympathy towards your speaker points.)

I tend to judge a hell of a lot of performance/K debates vs straight up policy teams. Given that I've elaborated on my feelings a lot more under the "Non-trad debate" section. In general, I feel that ambiguity is bad in these debates. Teams should have a methodological stasis. Furthermore, these straight up teams will probably have a harder time winning the perm vs almost any K team and will fare MUCH better by just sticking to their argument and winning framework/case outweighs.

What’s to hate about them? DA’s, and especially specific ones are very good to run. The only real comment I have is I’m sick of people (and especially in politics debates) using an overwhelming amount of short cards to overcome their cards terribleness. I’d much rather you actually have some analysis on their specific card than just three more cards that I would have to sort through at the end of the round. Most politics DA theory (i.e. vote no, intrinsicness, etc.) is silly, only go for it if it is dropped.
 * __Specifics, granted this is probably just general ramblings about debate… ---__**
 * DA’s – **

If it is generic, whatever, I’ll live. Specific PICs and other CPs are always enjoyable to watch. I usually side neg on most flow specific theory arguments but will still vote aff if there is a pretty good story of abuse. Despite my 2n/neg lean, States theory is a bit harder for the neg to win.
 * CP’s –**

Please do. I’ll even throw out this carrot, I will vote on defense (this goes for affs vs. DAs too, it is a two way street) and I will raise your speaker points. This is especially true K teams.
 * CASE –**

Being from SD I’m not well versed in every k, but mainstream k’s are fine. I’ll evaluate framing questions of epistemology/ontology/any-ology. There is no excuse for skimping on explanation. Just be clear as to what the role of the ballot is instead of confusing and my decision will be a lot better for you. K’s should not exist frameworks are silly. DEBATE THE CASE!!! Y our overarching framing argument will be a lot easier for me to evaluate if it is filtered through specifics on case.
 * K’s –**

Condo is usually fine. Single flow issues are usually a reason to reject the argument, NOT the team. Even then I tend to err neg on a lot of theory issues, I was/am a 2N. To win theory debates slow down and point to your offense and specific instances of abuse.
 * Theory –**

I’m by no means T savvy, so slow down on specific violations/interpretations. T is an issue of competing interpretations. Please have contextual evidence.
 * T –**

What my wiki said before.. " Fine with it, although I do believe that while you by no means have to defend a plan text, you should at least be somewhat related to the topic. Teams against non-trad teams. Framework is an option but counter-role-of-the-ballot positions are more effective."
 * Non-trad debate –**

That's pretty much all still true, however, I feel many performance teams are getting away with too much. I used to be a huge fan boy of this type of debate but current forms of it are VERY frustrating to watch

If you are a performance team looking to pref me, you should be fine if you provide a __**methodological stasis**__ - Do you provide a method to resolve the harms outlined in your performance? If your aff is along the lines of "bad stuff happens to me, therefore, the role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best talks about [insert thing I just talked about for eight minutes]" and that's it, you'll probably lose. These types of debates revolve around non-falsifiable arguments that I just do not find fun to adjudicate. What is an acceptable methodological stasis? That's clearly a difficult question to answer, but in general it should contain a way for the judge to act in an educational space and discuss reasons as to why this method is able to invigorate change in some capacity. A good example would be DSRB's three tier method. Furthermore, please please please talk about the topic!!!!! I don't think my standard is something that is insurmountable, especially on a topic that is based on expanding forms of economic control to the south. Even talking about how the topic is BAD for whatever reason is fine, just win SSD...

If you are a team debating a performance team, I probably have a higher standard on voting on framework than people you typically give a one on your pref sheet, and I'd rather you go for counter-k, but I assure you I am not some big hippy or anything. If they do not have an in depth discussion of the topic and/or do not provide a point of methodological stasis, go for framework. If they do, and framework is your thing, go for framework. I honestly have no tilt on the non-trad vs framework debate that seems to be tearing apart the debate community.

Finally, EVIDENCE QUALITY, both sides of the debate need to be doing this. I'm fairly baffled as to why teams are able to get away with reading WordPress articles and other forms of bad scholarship just because it is "performance ." I take very seriously that debate is a research activity and if the best source of evidence you use some one paragraph card from a blog written by some rando, I'll probably have a hard time voting for you in a debate with good evidence comparison by the other team.

I’ll let you know if you are unclear. But as a general note, at least slow down on theory/T/CP texts and preferably at least the tags on cars and front loads on analytic args. Don’t steal prep. Paperless is great, but prep time ends when the flash leaves the computer/email is sent. Be sassy, not mean. "Extinction" and "Nuclear war" are not tags.
 * Stylistic Issues –**
 * Don't be a dick, if the team wants the speech on their own computer, give it to them, I don't care about your "school policy."

Chao, Evan Jones evanj39@gmail.com