Meyer,+Jesse

Jesse Meyer (Updated for the 2016 Spring season)

I debated for Spencer High School in Spencer Iowa. I graduated from the University of Northern Iowa in May of 2010 after debating in college for 4 years. I finished my 2nd BA program in the Spring of 2013. I coached at Des Moines Lincoln HS for 2 years, and I now coach at John F. Kennedy HS in Cedar Rapids Iowa. I routinely judge at national level bid tournaments as well as local and regional events.

General debate things-

I hate teams that are disrespectful in round. I believe debate is one of the last few arenas where we can have civil discussion of ideas in a competitive setting. With that being said, don't talk over your opponent, don't shout them down, don't rude, don't be caddy, ect. In short, if your mother were to see the round, what would she say? I will dock rather heavy speaker points to show my dissatisfaction with disrespect in round.

I will sum up my philosophy by saying I will vote for any smart argument. I'll weight impacts that were in the round, I'll prioritize impacts the way the debaters argue that I should, and I'll vote for the person that played the game the best.

If your argument is particularly crazy, absurd, or offensive, the quality of argument your opponent will have to respond with is lower.

Paperless and evidence- Timer continues to run until they get your flash drive or viewing computer or email. I don't want to be on the e-mail chain. Thanks for asking, but if I am, I'll be tempted to read the ev as it is sent. That then releases the debaters from the responsibility of explaining the warrants of said evidence. Unless tournament rules state otherwise, if a team can't produce the whole article the card is from, I drop the evidence from the round. This doesn't mean the argument is gone, just the evidence. The argument can still exist as an analytic (essentially your tag is on the flow). If you are asked to show a source, you better be able to show it super fast and the highlighted part. Nothing will get me angry faster than a team being given a 100 page pdf and told "here it is".

To me, there is no such thing as an underdog or a favorite. I judge each round as I see it. At any given time on any given day, any given team can get the "W". It all comes down to prep, practice, and the desire to prevail.

=**PF**=

I'm a bit more odd than most judges insofar that I like a good terminal impact debate. Not every argument needs a nuke war or extinction impact, but coming from college policy, it's something that I can quantify. I also think it protects you from having the direction of your impacts jacked by the other team. With that being said, you don't need to run one or any in front of me. What I do demand is that you answer the resolution as if it were a question. For instance, if we are debating the reparations topic, saying reparations are good on the pro doesn't meet your burden because you still need to show that they should be paid.

I'm a stickler for language and wording. Tricky frameworks that play with the wording of topics and exploits things other teams may not see are easy ways to get my vote. Really look at what the resolution wants your side to prove.

Don't let the fact you don't have a card on something stop you from making the analytic. If you can explain how logically something is true, I'll vote on it.

Use the summary to clean up the flow and point out areas where you are ahead. Evolve these into voters in the FF. Depth over breath in the FF. I'd rather 2 well explained voters than 5.

=**Policy**=

DA's- I prefer a case specific DA to your generic DA's, but if you run a generic, at least make sure the link evidence mentions the plan. I weigh link evidence on a very high level. If you think their link is crap, call them on it. I'll listen.

CP- The more unique CP the better. If you go generic (like XO or States), please at least have a solvency advocate that mentions the thesis of the plan.

T- I made my neg life running T and procedural every neg round and winning the majority of my neg rounds on some combo of this. I believe that your violation should be rooted in evidence, and that it is a battle of CI. I hate when people use buzz words like "fariness", "education", and "ground." If you want my ballot, explain these words in the context of the round. I do not think T is genocidal. I also feel that it is a gateway issue and it comes first in evaluating the round, even over theory, although I could be convinced otherwise. I also tend to vote on T more than other judges.

K's- For the aff, I think that if you have good perm evidence, go for the perm, because I feel most perms actually do solve back for most of their offense. Also, explain how the k and the aff interact and what the K does to the aff (much like my evaluation of DA's, is it a case turn ect.) Since spending time with the UNI team post 1st BA, I've read more critical lit, but do not assume that I'm all that familiar with the author.

Critical affs- I'm ok with these. Like the K, keep doing overviews or in speech clarification of critical material.

Framework- Unless debated out, if you win framework, you win that I weigh your impacts under your framework. Generally, this means that you will win the round, but I've seen policy teams win their impacts under K framework and K impacts under a policy framework.

Spec args- I likely won't be voting on this issue unless completely dropped for the entire debate. I will allow new args against specs during the 1ar. I also think that the aff doesn't need to spend more time answering the spec arg than the neg team took to read it.

Pro formative arguments- I have, in recent years, started to judge these more as I'm kind of a middle ground between the policy folks and the pro formative folks and thus I'm a mutual middle in terms of prefs. One thing that has to be there for me is a topic hook. I evaluate these debates like any other: I look at the flow and weight arguments and what teams make the biggest thing in the round. This also means I flow, or at least I take notes. I know some teams say "don't take notes/flow" but I'm almost 30, I'm naturally scatter brained, and you want me to remember something important that was said an hour and a half ago? I need my notes... sorry.

In summary, overviews to explain stories saves me time on reading evidence. Be nice, have fun.

=**LD**=

First, I debated policy so I can flow speed. My tolerance for unclear speed is above average for the LD judge but your speaker points will suffer even if I don't ask you to clear up, so watch yourself. Be clear from the start. Part of debate is self monitoring. After talking with a ton of judges, I'll say what most judges won't say- if it is late in the day, especially on day two of a tournament, slow down. When judges yell "clear" in these later in the day rounds, chances are what they really want is for your to slow down because we are humans too and we are tired and most of us are older and speed and tired don't mix well. I guarantee that if you do this, you will boost your speaker points.

Theory: I will be honest, I don't want to hear a theory debate. I will listen to them, I will vote on it, I have voted on theory a ton, but not my favorite argument. Slow down, articulate a violation and an interp, show some abuse, and impact. Do it well and I'll give you a win 30. If you start reading theory like crazy or as a time suck, you will not be happy with your speaker points.

NIBS, hidden voters, triggers, or anything that could be called a "cheap shot."- Will I vote on these = yes. There is a fine line between a what one calls a cheap shot and what one calls a brilliant strategy. In football, plays like fumblerooskie are called "cheap" but in the end, they put points on the board. The basic thing is, if you are asked to point out hidden tricks or triggers or what you are running on a preempt, explain it honestly. If they fail to adequately answer it, not a cheap shot. If they fail to ask about these things, not a cheap shot. If you are evasive about these in CX or you just don't tell them something you should have, then it is cheap and the odds that I give your opponent some leeway on these grows.

Finally, end of the debate, please give me some impact weighing with a clear topic hook to your arguments. In rounds where this is close, teams are far more likely to get my ballot if you impact weight. I don't care if its value to life or nuclear war ends the universe, just please, give me a weighing mechanism.

Outside of that, debate should be fun. Have fun.