Jenkins,+Andrew

__Experience __

I competed in policy debate for four years in HS and one year at CEDA/NDT. I have also competed in college parli for three years and I coach a HS debate program that includes policy, parli and LD.

__Framing the debate __

 The way that I evaluate the debate round is entirely contingent upon the framework that is established by the teams in the debate. Walking into the round, I think it’s fair to assume that the affirmative is going to advocate some kind of simulated policy option and the negative is going to either defend the status quo or read a competitive policy option. However, I’m open to any alternative methodological framework that provides a different lens for evaluating the debate round.

 __Topicality/Theory__

 Unless told otherwise, I will evaluate procedural and theoretical arguments through a lens of competing interpretations. However, the impact debate in topicality/theory rounds is really important to me. It’s not sufficient to just extend an interpretation and mutter the words, “fairness and education.” Some discussion of what specific ground you lost and why that ground is particularly important would be useful in winning my ballot. In terms of theory, I’m usually compelled to reject the argument and not the team. So if you want me to reject the team for reading a severance permutation, as opposed to just rejecting the perm, you need to make sophisticated impact arguments.

 __Kritiks__

 I think kritiks are perfectly legitimate arguments that question the representations and/or methodology of the affirmative. This doesn’t mean I’m opposed to framework arguments that exclude the evaluation of the alternative. I just think you need other options and a damn good theoretical justification for wholesale rejecting their argument. Furthermore, I think substantive claims about which impacts should be prioritized are much more persuasive than blipped out theory arguments. Also, if you plan to go for a permutation in the rebuttal, you should probably be extending specific net-benefits with it.

 __CP/DA__

 Although I read the Kritik for pretty much the entirety of my own debate career, I love a good CP/DA debate. I’ll be honest; I would prefer a case specific CP or PIC to a generic Executive Order CP any day. But read what you want and I’ll vote for you if you win the argument.

I understand that LD is very different from policy debate, and thus judged differently. However, I think the above information will give you a good enough feel for what kind of judge I am. I orient my decision based on the flow and the arguments made in the debate. Give good impact analysis and argument comparison, and you'll make it easy for me to write an RFD.