Weld,+Jacob

Jacob Weld Liberty University.

So a little about me, don’t assume I just inherently know everything there is to know about economic engagement with Latin America. I have judged at tournaments, but I don’t automatically know what the intricacies of our trade relations with Mexico are. As far as speeches go, clarity is vital. If I can’t flow you I won’t evaluate your cards. If you become unintelligible I will verbally signal you with the word “clear”. Beyond this make sure you are making a clear delineation when one card ends and another begins. You should also signpost when you are going to a different flow. Roadmap at the beginning of your speech, and please tell me if there will be an overview requiring an extra piece of paper. The last note on the speeches would be slow down on the analytics, read them like tag lines, don’t tear through them as fast as possible, I need to know what claim each of them makes. When you get to cross-ex, know that this is my favorite part of a debate. It is your best chance to set yourself apart for speaker points. Now as far as snarky humor I think its fine, but there is line. If you become overtly offensive or insulting to your opponent I will drop your speaker points. Aggression in cross-ex is something that is fine up to a point. That point is when it becomes hostility. If one side wants to have a reasonable exchange of information, and the other team spends three minutes trying to cram a speech doc. down their throat. I’m going to give better speaks and pay more attention to the information coming from the calm collected side of the room.

Point scale: 30: I expect this team to win the tournament, get first speaker, and probably single handedly bring permanent peace to the middle-east. 29.5--29.9: this team should be the top speakers 29.0--29.4: this team should be top five speakers 28.5--28.9: this team should earn a speaker award 28.0--28.4: this team win either win a low speaker award or be on the fringe, they were in the top half of the speakers in their division 27.5--27.9: their performance was average for their level but I would not expect them to win a speaker award. 27.0--27.4: there was a specific area, probably marked on the ballot, for this team to improve in. 26.5--26.9: this team needs to be working with a coach either they were unorganized or their demeanor toward the other team or their partner was unprofessional. 00.0--26.4: my allocation of speaker points on this ballot was specifically designed to draw the attention of a coach to correct this team’s behavior. Either their debating ability is sub-par in a significant way, or they did something in this round that I found unacceptably racist, sexist, homophobic, or generally offensive.

an overall note on things listed below: this is how i feel about debate, however i will do my best to judge off of what happens in the round. if you out debate the other team on implementation, theory, or anything else i'm going to do my best to answer the question: who did the better debating?

On performance: Look i personally lean more policy when i debate but I try to carry a minimum bias either way. win the arguments of your performance and you win the round. one note on this, as far as framework its going to be easier for me to evaluate your performance with an advocacy statement that you hash out and explain throughout the debate. i think it nails down a start point for a debate and keeping the focus on the explanation of your performance over the performance itself will be to your advantage.

On topicality: I default to competing interpretations. I want to see teams both defend why their interpretation is good for debate as well as why the other team's interpretation is bad. This can include examples of in-round abuse, what limits each interpretation gives to the topic, and potential abuse. (also note: if every extension of T ends with reiterating "this is a voter for fairness and education". it will be a whole lot less convincing than an extension that explains how your standards interact with fairness and how that spills over to education. T needs impact calculus and clash analysis like any other part of the debate.)

On theory outside of T:

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">condo is good in limited amounts. I agree the Neg can attack the Aff at multiple levels, however I do think it is reasonable to say the Neg gets one attack per level. One K, one CP, and the S'quo. Here I need to stop and clarify, this is what I think is a fair form of condo. Too often in debate, condo, like much of theory becomes a blocked out, dry, and dull war of who is cheating. Like any other part of the debate, my standards for condo, perf con, framework etc. will depend on what you make them in-round. This is just my bias.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">On the K: do what you want, I have nothing against K's.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">When I debate as a 2N my K of choice is security. Which mean I know it the best, beyond that I am familiar with: Imperialism, Speciesism, Cap K, and Neo-Lib. don't be scared off of running a K that's not listed here I know how K's work, it just means if you want to run something like orientalism or andropocentrism or Wilderson make sure your focus is clear explanation. Last note on the K. For the Aff, investigate the alt. make sure they understand it. For the Neg, do not make me sit through watching you run a K you don't understand. If throughout the round it becomes clear that you have no idea what your K does i will not give it a huge amount of weight against the Aff.