Cook,+Jon

=
I debated on the national circuit for 4 years in high school (Marquette University High School). Currently, I attend the University of Chicago getting an intensive major in philosophy (specifically Derridean studies). =====

I haven't judged any debates on this topic, but I should be able to follow the debate. I'll ask you to send me the cards you read along with your opponents.

=
I will vote on anything as long as it is justified; this does not mean all justification are of equal in worth. I prefer technical arguments. I’m more apt to jump on small technical parts of the debate rather than do the work for you to connect the dots – that’s where the justification portion comes in. =====

=
**Note:** If there is false disclosure, and there is evidence to this fact, I will vote the offending team down and give them zero speaks. I view it as an ethical issue. The same applies to clipping cards. I hold the accuser to a high level of proof. =====

=
**Topicality:** To reiterate, I prefer technical debate above anything else. Topicality arguments should focus on comparing interpretations and impacting them out along this comparison. You should do the work to show me how your interpretations affect **//debate//** and contextualize it to the topic itself. Topicality should be about competing models of how debate should interact with the resolution and, as such, should focus on how your interpretation define the way in which debates can fall within your framing of the resolution. It should be noted that this means that I hold a very high standard on in round abuse. It is particularly hard to convince me to vote on abuse if your interpretation sets a bad precedent for debate writ large. =====

=
 **Counterplans:** I’m fine with any counterplans. Do the work for me and make the counterplan specific to the aff. Contextualize the net benefits. I am fine with uniqueness counterplans. =====

=
 **Kritiks:** I almost exclusively ran critical arguments while I was in debate (both critiques and performances), but do not assume that this means that you should read them for my sake. If you are going to read a K be able to articulate the argument as it applies to the affirmative plan and do not rely on grab words to do this work. I should (probably) be familiar with the literature, but you should do the work for me rather than relying on my knowledge of the argument. =====

=
 **Theory:** I really enjoy theory debates. That being said, I have the same feeling on theory as with topicality. Do the technical work to contextualize your argument as a model of debate. Explain how your interpretation leads to actual change. =====

=
**Delivery style:** Be clear, especially in important moments of the debate. If I’m unable to understand your analytics, then I can’t flow them or use them to evaluate. This is especially important in T and theory where technical skills are key to the entire argument. I will say clear if I need you to be clear, after 3 times I will dock you points. =====