Jackson,+Jeron

Jeron Jackson—Okemos High School Experience: I debated for 4 years in high school at the University Liggett School in Michigan from 1999-2003 (the program no longer exists). 3 years of college debate experience at Cornell University where I debated nationally and regionally. I have been judging officially for 4-5 years now in both college and high school. I now am in my third year of coaching at Okemos High School in Michigan.

Arguments: Topicality—I’m all for a really good T debate. You could probably run any T in front of me and I might vote on it, especially if the affirmative isn’t topical. That being said, T has to be gone for very well. I don’t like shallow extensions and need a lot of depth if you want me to vote for it. If you don’t plan on spending at least 2.5 minutes on it in your 2NR don’t expect me to pull the trigger (although it’s possible). Since I was a K debater on the aff and the neg for most of my debate career, I’m also open to any affirmative (be they topical or untopical). K’s of T are fine with me. **If you’re hitting a really K aff, especially one that is kritking debate** from like a KCC or Louisville style, **it might not be good for you to run T in front of me**, unless you’ve got your game down and can defend policy debate good, exclusion good, and T key to fairness/education, etc.

Theory—I’m okay with theory debates. I don’t think CPs //have to// be run dispo or have more than a NB to be considered competitive. I don’t mind multiple worlds / contradictions as long as they are fixed by the 2NR. There needs to be clash in these debates that goes beyond blocks if you are going to go for this in the rebuttals. Comparing interpretations and standards is essential to a good theory debate. Dropped theory arguments are easy ways to win in front of me, the less work I have to do the better, but impact them well.

CPs—All types of CPs are cool. I’m okay with all PICs. Just explain your CP and defend it. *Conditional consult CP is pushing it tho.

DAs—Most DAs are fine with me, although I am not a politics hack; yet, some how I usually end up voting for it. Negs need to explain your story to me and give me good analysis of anything tricky you are doing. Make sure you tell me what cards I might need to read and //please please please// compare uniqueness and link evidence (this goes for aff and neg). If you don’t I //will// do it for you and you might not like what I come up with. **I am not a fan of reading cards after the debates unless instructed to do so. That means I expect you to do the work for me, not the other way around.**

Ks—I love the K and I like to think I understand them. **The more analysis you can do and the more specific links you can generate, the higher your speaker points will be**. Don’t feel like you must run a K in front of me b/c if you do it poorly I will laugh at you. Str8 up affs attack the K how you feel comfortable…remember offense wins debates and attacking the alt or even explaining your perm could really save you.

Framework—**I hate frameworks debates** usually and don’t really understand what they mean. I tend to lean towards the neg on the k's good framework if the aff does a poor job defending theirs. You should both have interpretations and explain them well. Standards really need to be explained and implications need to be compared. Tell me what the world of debate looks like under your framework. Clash is key!

K affs—I usually like what you’re doing, but make sure you’re doing it well and show some **passion**. Don’t let the other side get away with too much or I just wont take you seriously.

Speaker points—I give good speaks. **The less work you make me do after the round the higher your speaks will be**. This means telling “even-if” scenarios, comparing evidence, producing clash, impact analysis w/ comparison of impacts, and **telling me where to look first when voting**. If you miss out of any of these things you really do leave it up to me to make certain decisions and you might not like that. I like effective cross-x; if you just ask the other team what they said you won’t be helping anyone in the debate.