Friedman,+JordanE

Cypress Bay '14 Northwestern University '18

[There are two Jordan Friedmans...I'm the one judging LD at Glenbrooks]

Brief backstory: I did policy debate for two years and then switched to LD debate my senior year. I competed nationally, regionally and locally and bid at Berkeley in LD. I also worked at NDF the summer after senior year.

If you're in a rush to finish judge prefs (because we've all been there), I'm pretty much open to everything. You do you. I mainly ran Ks and policy args in LD, so I will be better at evaluating those arguments. Also, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF [INSERT HIGHER POWER HERE] extend your shit properly - I'm talking claim, warrant, impact. I have seen people lose rounds simply due to a lack of proper extensions.

If you care to read more, here are the specifics:


 * Policy args:** If it isn't clear by now, I'm quite comfortable with these arguments and I like them. First, your D/A better have uniqueness. Second, please make sure your CP is competitive; if it's not, opponent person whoever you may be, please perm it. I'm asking nicely in hopes that you will listen. Third, plans/CPs should have solvency. Oh, and weighing. Weigh your impacts. Do it. If it is done well, good speaks will follow (and this usually helps people win rounds). Evidence comparison can also be a helpful technique when telling me how to evaluate the arguments in the round. I know some of this seems obvious, but you'd be surprised.


 * The K (on aff and neg):** Like I said before, I ran these a lot, mainly feminism-based Ks, intersectionality, narratives, some foucault and some other random ones that applied to particular situations. This means that I will be quite receptive to them IF they are ran well. I prefer topic and case specific alts.


 * Topicality:** I've grown fond of this argument.


 * Theory:** I'm more open to theory as a strategic argument. However, triggering frivolous theory just to debate theory is annoying. Keep the theory debate clean and organized, because if it's not, I'll probably look for the easiest way out or at substance. Currently, I will not enter into the round with any defaults, so it is up to you to establish/defend whatever in round.

- T and Theory are drop the arg, not the debater - Competing Interps - Comparative worlds
 * Defaults:** These are for if you force my hand. If you tell me what to do and support your claim, I will vote that way.


 * Speaker points:** I will tell you to slow down/be clear if I need you to. Speaker points are arbitrary. If you're unclear or too quiet then me being unable to understand your argument will be "punishment" enough. I am an extreme point fairy. I dock speaks for offensive arguments. Range: 28.5-30

If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me before the round/email me jordan.friedman26@gmail.com