Martin,+Jeremy

Jeremy Martin

Affiliation: Westwood HS, Dartmouth College

Debate is fun! Don't let the intensity of competition crowd out your sense of humor or your ability to enjoy the round. Learning, loving, and engaging in discussion is the best thing about the debate community. Show respect for yourself and others.

This is my 6th year of coaching. I debated for 4 years at Jack C. Hays HS and 2 years at Dartmouth College. I worked at the DDI from 2003-2008 in some capacity.

I like to judge and take the job seriously. I understand how hard you work and will do my best to provide constructive feedback about the round and make a decision that reflects my flow.

Read arguments that you feel most comfortable with. Your ability to explain arguments clearly and persuasively is more important than appealing to my bias.

Some biases and other thoughts:

1. Clarity - you should strive for it! I've seen an increasing trend of debaters speaking unintelligibly and not responding to judges' calls for clarity! I'm going to stop straining to understand things that aren't communicated clearly.

2. Topicality - Its about limits and literature. I want to know what cases your vision of the topic would allow, what cases the opponents' interpretation would allow, and why one vision of the topic is preferable. Not big on Aspec.

3. theory - I have a high threshold for voting on underdeveloped theory arguments and cheap shots. Quantity of arguments distracts from the point of debating theory. The goal should be explaining how the theoretically illegitimate practice/argument affects the reasons WHY we debate: education (specifically, learning about the topic), fairness (questions of reciprocity and competitive equity), and fun! Tie your theory objections to these 3 areas of impact analysis. Pics are probably good. Conditionality is acceptable, but this not as true in the presence of multiple conditional CPs or contradictory advocacies. CPs should have a solvency advocate.. My debaters think I am "old school" because of these last 2 statements and I think they need to cut more cards.

4. framework - Aff Framework against a K is a vehicle for allowing the aff to weigh their impacts, not a reason alone to reject a kritik. Neg framework against K affs should have a clear interpretation of what debate should look like and why the affirmative is both not that AND unlimits debate.

4. kritiks - I like 'em. Alternatives are necessary and most effective when involving a discussion of the role of the ballot and the interaction with the case. debate the case - apply link and impact arguments to the 1ac! There is no difference between pre-fiat and post-fiat. Kritik links will be hard to win if couched in terms of “reinforcing” – the point of criticism is not to point out how assumptions reinforce assumptions, but why the aff’s framing of the status quo is problematic. i'm much more interested in the impact/alternative level of the debate. permutations are good args for the aff - especially if you have an argument about why the alternative ALONE fails or is bad.

6. disads - yeah, i get it. impact calc should go way beyond 'we've got magnitude and timeframe, judge' by COMPARING the da impacts versus the case impacts. It's all about the Link. da only outweighs the case by mitigating the advantage and/or having a CP that solves most of it. I love smart, true defensive arguments that test Internal-link and impact claims - don't even need a card for the good ones!

7. counterplans - yep, like these too. I'm relatively weak about advanced competition issues with tricky technical CPs, it is your job to make these clear and spend a little extra time making sure I understand.

8. Cross-x is sacred – use this time wisely. Take prep time to deliver a good cross-x if necessary. Make important distinctions between arguments. Judges should be able to LEARN things from the cx period about important distinctions and comparisons. READ EVIDENCE and point out flaws in your opponent’s cards. Making silly arguments and evidence disappear during cross-x is a good use of time. Don't shady - just answer the question.

9. during the debate - i'm told that i appear fairly expressive while judging. sometimes my facial expressions really do show my dismay, other times i'm just thinking hard. unless i'm shaking or nodding my head don't read into my outbursts too much.

I do try to protect the 2nr against new 2ar arguments - but i'm only human.

all i have for now. please ask if you have questions!