Arnett,+Jacob


 * Background**

I graduated from Flower Mound High School in 2013, and competed for four years in LD on the Texas local circuit and the national circuit. I qualified for the TOC my senior year. I've taught at NDF for two years.


 * Overview**

Read what you feel most comfortable with. I've judged pretty much every type of case and style out there at this point, so do what you do best. If you want to see my thoughts on specific things, you can read below.


 * Speed**

Go for it. I'll say clear if I don't understand you.


 * Policy argumentation**

Plans, counterplans, DA's, etc. are all fine and encouraged. If you want to read a position focused on utilitarian impacts, please be sure to do the weighing necessary. Strength of link is an under-utilized argument and doing the extra work at the end of the speech to establish some strong weighing and clash will guarantee you high speaks.


 * FW debate**

I'm very comfortable judging dense framework debates, and I generally enjoy debates that have intense clash above the contention level. My preference for framework is that you spend a lot of time doing comparative analysis for why your framework is better/solves for the philosophical problems that your opponent's framework fails to address. Meta-ethics/ontology/epistemology arguments are all fine and you can feel free to read them. If you do a good job on framework debate, I'll generally give you high speaks.


 * Kritiks**

I'm familiar with most K authors ran in debate. You can run Foucault, Delueze, who ever you want. That being said, simply reading cards and hoping that I'll figure it out for you is not sufficient. If your planning to run a K, I want an explicit explanation on how it interacts with your opponents ethical assumptions. I want to know why these arguments matter in the round, so failing to have that comparative analysis means that I will have a much higher threshold for voting off your arguments.


 * Pre-fiat**

Pre-fiat arguments are fine, but it needs a clear role of the ballot argument. I presume the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater, but if the ballot is meant to be used as a tool, then that needs to be explicit in the round. Additionally, this argument needs to be warranted. Role of the ballot arguments are not 2 sentence lines about why we need to make the community a better place. Do the work to establish why I should vote for your position, and I'd be more then happy to endorse it.


 * Theory**

I default to competing interpretations, but I'm willing to interpret theory as an issue of reasonability. Have good standard weighing, because nothing's harder then judging a theory debate with no clash. I default drop the argument, and I default no RVIs, but I am willing to vote off an RVI but it needs to be justified in your speech. If you're reading multiple theory shells, I prefer weighing between them based on strength of link. Paragraph theory is fine, but it needs to be extended with voters as to why I should vote for it. Extending in a shell format is preferred if you're going to make it a voter issue.


 * Speaker Points**

I try to average a 28, but I will the speaker points I give based off what I perceive to be the quality of the tournament.

30- I think your one of the best debaters at the tournament, and you had very strong clash, extensions, and clarity in the round. There was no doubt as to how your arguments worked, and I had to do no work for you to adjudicate the round. 29- You are one of the better debaters at the tournament, and you had some solid extensions and clash. You can use some work on overall clarity, but for the most part, your speeches were strong. 28-You had some ups and downs during the round, alternating between some decent extensions and explanations, and then the lack of. You need some improvement with clarity, and do a better job crystalizing the round. 27- You need to improve on overall clarity and clash, extensions, etc. 26 or less - You offended me in some way in which I feel its necessary to probably talk to your coach about it. Rudeness, racism, sexism, etc.

If you have any questions, shoot me an email. jacobarnett29@gmail.com