Hendricks,+Jordan


 * Jordan Hendricks**
 * Bingham High '13**
 * Weber State University '17**

Top Level [TL;DR]
Do what you do best and I will attempt to be as objective as possible [a futile, yet worthwhile, endeavor]. Try to minimize the amount of work I have to do. I really like line-by-line, so do your best to maintain a clean flow. All of the defaults listed below are obviously variable if argued to change in the debate. I end prep when you say to end it--I'll start counting flash/email time as prep if it becomes annoying. My email is hendricks.jordan.s@gmail.com, please add me to your email chain. I went to the NDT twice as a debater for Weber, after which I quit. As a collegiate debater, I became known for reading Nietzsche/Bataille/potentially messed up things quite often. Please don't take this to mean that I a) like philosophical nonsense opposed to well-articulated arguments, b) dislike or are otherwise incapable of judging "straight up" arguments [I always found myself cutting Politics cards even when I knew we'd not be reading it], c) dislike identity positions, or d) only understand postmodern K positions. I consider myself knowledgeable enough to adjudicate any debate, and the standard of explanation required will be high no matter your stylistic preferences. I haven't done extensive topic research, so cover your bases with things like acronyms and assumed topic knowledge. Record the debate if you'd like, but obtain consent from the other team prior. I'll clarify things like perm texts if you lie/forget in cross-x.

Affirmatives
Anything you want to do is great, be it "straight up," "K," or "performance/identity/project" [or whatever people prefer to call it]. If your aff is germane to the topic, I'll be marginally more pleased.

Topicality--
Impact your standards and do impact comparison. "Explodes limits" is an internal link. I'll default to reasonability, but one component of reasonability is determining if the aff is "reasonable." Try not to make me do that work.

Contextual definitions generally go far.

Theory--
__**Please dear god slow down on theory arguments**__

I'll listen to any theory argument. I don't have many leanings, aside from that 5 conditional advocacies is probably/definitely too many. Not just because it makes the debate difficult, but also because it generally leads to undercoverage in the block and the debate just gets bad. Aside from that, CPs are usually fine if they have solvency advocates. I tend to believe rejecting the argument is a sufficient remedy to the impacts of many argument-specific theoretical impacts.

Framework--
No leanings here. I'm the type of debater to read a K aff in one debate and go for FW in the next. I tend to prefer substantive FW impacts over things like fairness, but in some debates the theory might become more relevant. I essentially view debate as a game, with rules and content to be decided by the debaters. I suppose the only FW argument I dislike is the assumption that people will take the knowledge they gain in debate to "become a policymaker" or change anything once we "have our hands on the levers of power."

The aff should use the aff's substance to answer FW and avoid reading generic defense in order to win.

Kritiks--
Don't expect me to have read your specific author. I dislike any strategy designed to run from clash. I'd much rather prefer to see a well-argued capitalism debate than a Bataille debate in which nobody is really sure what's going on. I'd be disingenuous if I didn't point out that I usually enjoy a K being debated in a "straight up" way. Line by line on K debates seems much simpler/more organized than long overviews and unnecessary grouping. For instance, if they make a link defense argument, make your link arguments there instead of just doing it all at the top. Overviews are for clarifying important theses and presuppositions of your position. As briefly mentioned, I'd like it for you to answer permutations independently instead of just grouping them. Though, that supposes the 2A was being strategic in their 2AC permuting, so capitalize if they fail to do so.

2AC framework against a K [K's dont belong in debate stuff] is virtually useless in front of me. However, I do think that you should probably get to weigh your affirmative.

Don't just read a wall of generic predictions good, state inevitable, and realism good in the 2AC. I understand those arguments may be very helpful and necessary [in certain instances], but I dislike it when a team blows off the thesis of the K.

Counterplans--
Theory covered above, net benefits/competition are your friend.

I'll presume aff if the risk of the NB is too small to matter. I'll kick the CP for you, but only if you explicitly ask me to do so in the 2NR and provide reasons for why I ought to.

Disadvantages--
UQ is a component of the Link. I tend to think the Link is more important, but argue to your advantage.

Impact calculation should be done early and often.

The Case--
Case debate is fabulous. I'll do my best to flow 1NC blips on the case, but try to slow down for those analytic take-outs.

Speaker Points--
If there's an official tournament scale, I'll follow it 26 and below---Something demands attention and I've flagged it on the ballot

28---Average

30---I can't see myself giving more than one per season---perfection through and through [breathing patterns, clarity, good arguments, etc]

Ethics Challenges--
Please try to avoid these if at all possible. They're a big deal, and I don't want anybody unnecessarily feeling put down upon because they might not be perfectly clear yet. There must be a recording of the offense that clearly demonstrates an unethical action taken. I'll follow the rules of the tournament. 0 speaker points and a loss to those who clip and do similar things, but by all means contact a coach before I make my decision so you can have due process.

Pet Peeves--
The phrase "brief off time roadmap"

Lack of order

Reading tags/authors unclearly---I prefer clarity all throughout, but tags are crucial