Smith,+Jason+R


 * This is the Jason Smith that judges national circuit LD. Feel free to message me** **if you're wondering if I'm at a tournament.**

I debated LD at WDM Valley (IA) for four years, graduating in 2014, and I currently coach there and study philosophy and political science at UChicago. I am fine with nearly any warranted argument with a link to the ballot, run what you want to run. I highly value argument interaction and weighing on all layers (//including framework preclusion args//) to minimize intervention. When I do have to intervene, I'll do it in a relatively unbiased way that makes sense to me (intuitions, strength of link, extension quality, etc), but both you and I want to avoid this. You should slow down for (a) theory interps and plan texts **to conversational pace,** (b) particularly weird/complicated/dense arguments, (c) blippy spikes, and (d) tags. I will say clear/slow as many times as necessary, but I will lower speaks if it gets ridiculous. In these cases, assume I missed the last argument you made. **I will not vote for an argument that I do not understand**, and I'm not shy about ignoring arguments on those grounds. I have particularly high standards of explanation for tricks and I think “no warrant” is an underused argument nowadays - especially against “high theory.” I default to competing interps, reject the argument, and no RVI. I really dislike theory shells that are both (a) unusually terrible arguments and (b) really boring and uncreative - one or the other is fine, but not both. Looking at you, brackets theory.

I give speaks based on strategy and argument quality. I like original and interesting positions. Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, mean, or rude. I will dock your speaks for reading a position that should have a trigger warning without one - I don't have an exact brightline, but use common sense and be a decent person. Be nice to people less experienced than you and generally be the sort of person in round you want to be out of round.