Worrell,+Jeremiah

**Experience: 4 years debating for Owasso High School** (Civil Liberties, National Service, Africa, Alternative Energy), **One year for the University of Central Oklahoma** (nuclear weapons), **and I currently debate for the University of Missouri- Kansas City** (since the Energy topic).
 * Jeremiah Worrell**

**Strikes: Owasso** **Updated 1/9/2013** **There are a few general things first:** **1. Everything you say has to pass the “make sense” test.** This basically just means that if something you say doesn’t make sense to me (either due to a lack of explanation or because it just straight up doesn’t make sense anyway) then I’m not going to evaluate it. If your 1AC doesn’t make sense to me, you are going to have a bad time.


 * 2. I view debate as a game of competing methodologies.** Because of this, I tend to view the round a lot more holistically than other judges. I tend not to get bogged down in the hyper-specifics of the line-by-line. Don’t take this the wrong way, I will flow, and I will look to the line-by-line to resolve issues, but I’m not very inclined to drop a team for some small, nit-picky reason.


 * 3. As a general caveat, do what you do best, and I’ll evaluate it.**


 * 4. My favorite kinds of debate to judge are 1) Good K debates, 2) specific CP/PIC and disad debates, and 3) Impact turn debates.**


 * Now down to specifics:**

I tend to have a pretty high threshold for abuse when it comes to procedurals. If you want to pick up my ballot with one (whether it be T, theory, framework or something else), you’d better be ready to go all in on it. I need specific reasons why you feel the other team should lose, not “perms are totez aff condo man” or “they explode the limits, juuuuuudge”. I’m not very inclined to vote on potential abuse, but can probably be persuaded to if you do well enough explaining why it should be an impact. As far as competing interps vs. reasonability goes, I tend to be somewhere in the middle. I don’t feel that a particular definition is superior simply because it is more limiting. You have to make a case as to why the particular limits your definition sets are best beyond just generic “narrow definitions good” stuff. With that in mind I tend to view reasonability more as an extension of competing interpretations.
 * Procedurals**

This is the style of debate that I know best because it's the one I've been doing for the longest.There are a few general rules for teams reading Ks in front of me:
 * Kritiks**

1. I'm not impressed by teams going to the fringes of debate (either right or left or otherwise), mostly because I've probably been there and done that. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate it, but I'm not a fan of this crazy-for-the-sake-of-crazy style that seems to be catching on. I'm much more impressed by teams that pick a K and know everything about it, it's literature base, and can be specific about its explanation. Speaking of specificity...

2. The teams that pick up my ballot going for Ks (partciularly in K-on-K violence) have been the teams that have specific links and specific applications of links. If it's K aff vs K neg debates, then specificity is even more important.

3. Talk about the role of the ballot and your impact framing. It amazes me the number of teams that don't do this.

I like a really good, specific CP debate. With that said, I find myself being frustrated (both judging and debating against them in college) with CPs that don't have a very logical net-benefit or reason they solve the aff. See my stuff above about the make-sense test. It's the neg's burden to prove that your CP solves/ has a net benefit, NOT the affirmatives to prove that it doesn't.
 * Counter-plans**

Impact calculus. Do it. Always. Otherwise it's whatever. I think sometimes people forget about probability in impact calculus and it ends up biting you in the ass.
 * Disads**

I see a trend in evaluating case debates where solvency is evaluated as more of a yes/no question and arguments that might mitigate solvency or call it's timeframe into question are either not evaluated or not privileged. I tend to disagree with this, in fact I think calling solvency into question can go a long way towards winning the timeframe debate on a disad, regardless of whether or not you take out all of solvency. I also have more of a tendency to vote on terminal defense than a lot of other judges do, but I find that it's a bit of an uphill battle to win a complete impact takeout.
 * Offense/Defense**

As far as impact turns go, I love them. With that said it'll be damn near impossible to convince me that racism is good (it isn't) but I'm just fine voting for dedev.


 * Other things you should know:**
 * 1. Prep time stops when you pull the flash drive out. No exceptions.**
 * 2. I'll probably call for cards after the debate.**
 * 3. I may put my headphones on if I have to think about a decision for a while. This isn't a bad sign (usually).**
 * 4. I'm going to swear. If you don't like it, don't fucking pref me.**