Jackson,+Luke

Hello, and thank you for researching your judges!

In high school, I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate and extemporaneous speaking for four years on the UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA cicuits, and have experience judging LD, CX, PF, and Extemp.

Now that my background is out of the way, let’s get into paradigms.

I‘m more or less your typical college judge. I‘ll listen to anything you say and judge it based on the quality of the argument. I don’t think any debate or argumentation should necessarily be confined to an arbitrary structure. In fact, I think that sometimes traditional case trustees can hinder the ideas of debaters. That being said, I’ll evaluate any case regardless of structure, so don’t feel like you’re at a disadvantage if you’re a traditional debater.

When judging a debate round, I want there to be a clearly established evaluating mechanism (A.K.A. Framework), and the rest of the arguments to opposite within that standard. For CX and PF, I default to a cost-benefit FW if none isn’t provided, but I’ll take a proboxed FW as well. In LD, if no one provides a FW I will be upset.

Speaker Points: If you’re an ass, I’ll take points off. Aggressiveness/sassiness is one thing, but being unnecessarily rude is inexcusabl. As for spreading, I can keep up with the best of them, but not the worst of them. Go as fast as you want so long as you’re articulate and clear. If youre studdering too much, breathing like you’re going to die, or using an annoying level of filler words, I’ll dock speaks. I’ll give you ine “clear” before I stop trying to flow you. If I look noticeably frustrated or inattentiv, check yourself. If I look extremely interested, keep going. If I’m interested and not flowing, I’ll write it down when the argument is done. Just keep going. Speaker points, to me, indicate clarity, composure, argumentation skills, and respect.

Theory: Love it, used it a lot myself especially my senior year. My one stipulation is make sure it’s meaningful, not just some stock shell used to throw your opponent off guard. I don’t require carded evidence for theory, just good analysis. I’ll give any debater and RVI if they ask for it, and I’ll refuse and RVI if there is sufficient reason given to do so. If you do run Theory, make sure you mention is as an off in your road map (I don’t like having to use surprise paper).

Topicality: Just like theory.

Kritiks: Love them when they’re good, hate them when they’re bad. Make sure a link actually links or I‘ll have a hard time evaluating it. Same thing with the internal links.

ROTB: To me, it’s just another kind of FW that has to be compared to the opponent’s FW. That being said, I do prefer there be a standard of some kind given when there is a ROTB (i.e. ROTB to vote against violence, standard reduce debumanization or whathaveyou). For ROTB and for any FW for that matter, I need you to extend it from your constructive(s) and into each speech in the debate for me to consider it a true the end.

Policy Args: Again, just another kind of argument. If it’s a good argyment and fits inside the FW, I’ll take it.

In general, I want a good debate with real clash and solid evidence and analysis. I think really good logic/empirics can take the place of a card in some cases but not all (i.e. stats, not commonly-known facts, scientific studies, etc.). I won’t tell alex a card without analysis, and I sure as hell won’t take rhetoric/buzz words over substance (i.e. “they‘re sexist/racist/ableist” or “ontological death of the simulacra of identity”). Bottom line is, you have to convince me that you’re right, and that won’t happen if your arguments are empty or stupid (i.e. racism good). Beyond that, debate hard and debate well, and may the last survivor win!