Sykes,+Jason

Jason Sykes Denton Guyer

I have been teaching full time since 2003 (Grapevine, Hockaday, Southlake). My college policy debate career ended in 2002 (UNT). I have been involved with debate since 1992.

I will do my best to minimize intervention, but I do not pretend that my subjectivity disappears when I judge debates. As a debater, I read arguments I believed in. I think the personal is political. In my mind it is often difficult to be persuasive with repugnant or offensive arguments.

An argument will hopefully include warrants and make sense to me. Everything is open to debate. This document provides a bit of insight into the process I use to make decisions //unless asked to do otherwise//. Perhaps most importantly, I view all debate as a matter of comparison between competing frameworks/perspectives. I want to evaluate: a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of that framework's demands.

I believe the topic should provide debatable ground, but I've been known to rock the boat on this one. I am generally more interested in thinking about how arguments interact than I am in determining who won a theory debate. I have no strong predispositions about theory debates except that I tend to think about what I would have done in a similar situation.

At least a few of the arguments we read in college seemed relatively innovative at the time. Most of my reading in debate is from a critical angle.

I probably won't comment on delivery unless I can't/don't understand or it significantly hampers (or doesn't contribute to) the content of your speech.