Shelton,+Jacob

Chattahoochee High School 2015 University of Michigan 2019 Assistant Coach --- Wayzata High School (MN)

__**Debates Judged**__

China Topic: 19 (+ 14 camp debates) Surveillance Topic: 55


 * __Personal Information__**

I debated for four years at Chattahoochee High School on the national circuit, and I am currently a sophomore debating for the University of Michigan. As a debater, most of my experience has been reading "policy"-oriented arguments (my most frequent 2NRs include DA/Case or DA/CP strategies, T, and the Security K). As a judge, I've voted for the necropolitics K, the appeasement DA, and just about everything in between. I believe the ability to judge is a privilege, and I'll work hard to make the best decision I possibly can.

__**General Thoughts**__

" I believe that debate is a communicative activity and not a judge reading comprehension test, which means I will not just call for all of the evidence at the end of the debate because it was read ... I find that judges that just call for all of the evidence tend to reconstruct the debate in terms of evidence read instead of the arguments made." - Andrew Hart


 * Do what you do best. Don't "adapt" to me as a judge based on assumptions of which styles of arguments I prefer. I'm a technical, flow-oriented judge who will attempt to adjudicate the debate with as minimal intervention as possible on my part. If you win on the flow, you're going to win my ballot.**


 * __Specific Arguments__**


 * Counterplans:** You'll be rewarded if they're specific, but I'm more willing than most judges to vote for process-based CPs. This is not because they're necessarily great arguments, but instead because most affirmatives aren't very good at contesting their theoretical legitimacy or competitiveness.

Well-developed case defense is an incredibly under-utilized weapon. This includes logical analytic arguments, which are often more persuasive than the atrocious evidence that most teams get away with reading.
 * DA/Case Debate:** It's your job as debaters to tell me how I should weigh different components of these debates. Is winning the link more important than winning uniqueness? How does turns case analysis impact aff solvency? The team that better responds to these kinds of general framing questions within their speeches tends to be the one I end up voting for in close rounds.


 * Kritiks:** The best critique debaters I've seen contextualize their links to the specificity of the aff and it's advantages and don't rely on random dropped K tricks. I was recently asked before a debate "how far left is too far left", and my response was "if you can't explain your argument in a coherent fashion, you've gone too far". Take that as you will.


 * Theory:** The most likely theoretical violation to result in me rejecting the team is conditionality. Many theory debates are difficult to adjudicate because they lack impact analysis. Explain why what your opponents have done is a reason to reject the team and explain the consequences of not doing so in a persuasive manner. I'm not likely to vote on a blippy theory argument like vague alts or multiple perms that is very minimally articulated early in the debate, but these are useful as reasons to reject arguments.


 * Topicality:** I generally default to an ideology of competing interpretations but can be persuaded to err on the side of reasonability. I think that many 2N's lack impact analysis or comparison between the two interpretations, which makes some general aff arguments for their interpretation relatively convincing. Caselists for your interpretation and your opponent's are really helpful.


 * Planless Affirmatives:** I evaluate these debates just like I would any other debate (based on the arguments made in the round, not my personal preferences). I will vote for framework if the negative wins it, and I'll vote against framework if the negative loses it. Teams that win "clash of civilizations" debates tend to control the overarching framing of the round --- while technical debate is important, don't miss the forest for the trees.