Jordan,+Jason


 * Minor changes on January 14, 2016**


 * Jason Jordan**

Now: (coach at) The University of Utah Previously: (coached at) Ranger College, Richardson HS, Decatur HS (all in tx)

Language that is explicitly violent toward or exclusionary of any category of persons does not belong in debate, so don't engage in it. People should try to be nice to each other.

You should do what you like doing and/or what is most strategic (or generative) in the particular debate you are in. I'm down for whatever. My personal politics/beliefs/interests have very little (if anything) to do with who/what I vote for. I read a lot of both 'critical' and 'policy' things, and tend to be farmiliar with most of the things people seem to want to talk about in debates. However, I will use your articulations/explanations of things to make my decission, not my personal knowledge base from outside reading. I do not seek 'truth' when ajudicating debates. I am more interested in what your arguments 'do' mechanically than I am in the specific content of these arguments.

I do not hold any personal normative views on any theory arguments. If there is a theoretical issue germane to your strategy, have that debate. Absent a winning/offensive theory argument, I default to debaters having access to their arguments (ie: the neg getting their questionable CP, the aff getting their objectionable perm).

In general, an argument in a debate round needs to have three parts to be worth considering at the end of the debate: a claim (what you're argumentatively advancing), a warrant (why this is true), and an implication (how this argument being true influences the rest of the debate). Don't overthink this though. This seems to be a problem mostly on theory debates.

I am comfortable with all 'styles' of debating/engaging in argument. I will evaluate/think about your debate in any way you would like me to. Just tell me.

If I am not given direction otherise, I will default to this manner of ajudicating: I will vote for the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. On all portions of the debate I will use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments. I will not evaluate speaking skills as part of my decision, nor will I link any value judgment to a proper “method” of speaking in debate rounds.