Schoeneman,+Jacob

My real name is Jerkub, but tab tables can't spell my name right, I have used this name for convenience. I debated 5 years at Homewood Flossmoor. In college I debated on and off, winning the NDT twice and CEDA once. I am now the head coach for Hoflo.


 * Brief Notes: **

- New 2ar arguments are a good thing – “ new in the 2” rhymes, it was meant to be - Too many people complain about underdevelopment, I have the opposite problem. Please don’t explain arguments or give warrants, all of them are really contrived anyways and don’t end up mattering, if they do I’ll just call for the card. I think many debaters waste valuable speech time trying “explain” shit instead of just making more arguments - I believe excessive clarity has become a problem in the community. When debaters focus on being “clear” they trade off with their ability to mumble off 3 other disads. Please, don’t be clear, as long as you go fast and pretend to know what you are talking about, I will call for the cards. - Cards make arguments, debaters try. Please don’t. On a related note, please stop trying to use “warranted analysis” or “answer” cards with analytics. Your authors are always more qualified than you. In the event that someone reads a card, the only proper way to respond is to read more. - Author qualifications – this has become a problem in the community. Far too many debaters read evidence from internet bloggers or equally unqualified sources. In order to rectify this I am eliminating any evidence that I deem “unqualified.” This will obviously vary from round to round, however, as a general rule of thumb; your authors should always have more than one Ph.D. and be leading experts in their respective fields. - Bribery – Yes, but please be discrete about it. I will not accept any amount under $50. - I don’t flow – I feel that’s a given. Debate is a communication activity, and I feel that can be done without forcing me to do extra work for you. Sometimes, debaters will get mad at me for this, however, if you can’t keep your argument simple enough that after over an hour of listening to you I can’t understand it, then you deserve to lose. That being said, I will sometimes have out a piece of paper, but I am likely doodling or drafting my suicide note. - Truth > tech, always, no exceptions. - I am noninterventionist, no matter what, I will literally do nothing. - Please don’t swear, talk loudly, harshly, or use racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, gendered, or otherwise offensive language. It will make me cry. - Defense outweighs offense always - Treat my decision with respect. After issuing a decision I expect the team that I awarded the ballot to thank me, and the team that lost to apologize profusely to me. Failure to do this will result in a massive speaker point deduction.

- Clarity has become a problem, if you feel you are being too clear, you are. I should understand AT MAXIMUM around 20 percent of what your saying. - Speed has become a problem, far too many debaters are holding back, and it detracts from the quality of the debate. If you like to read at slower than 600 words per minute, then I’m not the judge for you. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- In determining speaker points I will rate the following things. How well you are dressed, laptop stickers, coach/school, speed unclarity. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Please refrain from telling jokes or other things during speeches, speeches are for arguments, anything else trivializes the seriousness of the activity and I will punish you with a zero. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- I enjoy and will award pitch changes, for every octave you raise your voice, you will gain an extra point. Debate is at its best when both debaters are screeching incoherently like monkeys. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Breathing – I enjoy both exaggerated breaths and double breaths. Please emphasis these practices. I have yet to see an attempt at triple or quadruple breaths. If you can pull this off – instant 30. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Hand motions, dips, dancing, and other spreading idiosyncrasies destroy debate as it should be; I am taking the following corrective action. You must be standing up strait; arms at your side while you are speaking any shift in this position will result in a loss and a zero. In the event both teams do this, I will either drop whoever did it first or assign a double loss. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- Speaker points – I use the following scale.
 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Speaking **

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">25 – I don’t like you, I feel you should finish in the bottom 25 speakers. You have personally offended me

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">26 - Your debate was unpleasant, it made me want to kill myself multiple times, you should finish somewhere in the 100—200 range.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">26.5 – I want to cry tears of blood.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27 – you debate like a novice

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27.1 – JV material

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27.2 – You make me want to quit this activity

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27.3 – you should be around the top 150 speakers/ I feel bad for your opponents so I dropped your points.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27.4 – You debated like shit, but you wore a tie.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27.5 – perfectly average

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27.6 – you reminded me of an old girlfriend

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27.7 – definitely top 121

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27.8 – With a little more work, you could be in the top 83, you perhaps forgot to do line by line or read cards

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27.9 – top 83 – my urge to kill myself was slightly less prevalent

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">28 and above – I only assign these to teams with strong reputations, I assign them at random, using a number generator. I likely did not flow the round and just voted affirmative.

October 2013 Update <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Following issues in the community with speaker point inflation, I have taken the following 2 actions. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- In an attempt to create net deflation/correct for others inflating, I will subtract 5 or 10 from my old points (see above). Thus, if you should have ended with a 27.5, you finish with either a 17.5 or a 22.5, depending on my mood. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- If you are from a rich school/school of privilege, I am punishing you by subtracting 1 speaker point. It’s your fault for being born into wealth. I will decide whether or not your school qualifies as such. A good rule of thumb is with you are from either of the Glenbrooks, a preparatory school, or any private school.


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Voting record **

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Blake 2012 <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Double loss (the affirmative defended neg neg)

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Berkley 2013 <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">IHSA 2013 (I split all 5 rounds) <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Niles 2013 <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Neg (the negative defended the resolution more than the affirmative) <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff (sat) <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff (sat) <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Double win

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">New Trier 2013 <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Neg (I later changed my mind)

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Michigan 2013 <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aff


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Stock Issues **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – These are a thing, I will not hesitate to vote on them. In fact, they are normally the only reason I ever vote negative. You’d be amazed at the number of affs that aren’t future trend inherent.


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Case **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – it’s nice to have one, but not necessary, simply impact turning disads can work quit well. If you do decide to include them, I prefer modular advantages with 20 different impacts in the 1ac. Internal link development makes me sad.


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Plans **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – I don’t know why people still read them, they seem like a waste of times. I don’t believe affirmative should defend them and counterplans can’t compete off them. Debate should be about underlying political ontologies, trying to constrain affs to plans is not only futile but only makes the debate more confusing. * I have seen a notable exception to this where West Georgia read a 9 minute plan text.* The only other exception I will make is when debaters read the actual text of the bill. I believe this offers the most educational opportunity for the debate. However, any small mistake will cost you the ballot.


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Critical affirmatives **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – yes please, these arguments make sense. Please make as many broad, sweeping, utopian, spill over arguments as possible in 8 minutes. I will grant them all to you. Don’t defend shit, move around, I will be sympathetic, I think that trying to clarify what this aff does is a hopeless task with me as a judge, I feel negative teams should either go for inherency or a modified borders K.


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Projects **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – I don’t think these are a thing. I am Filipino and Jewish and don’t feel oppressed by debate. Apart from calling them on their bullshit, negatives should go for a Borders K or Batille. Aff teams should exploit the inherent contradict between framework and their K, the 2ar should always be perfcon.


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Theory **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – Only when its fast. There is nothing I would rather listen to than you incoherently spread of your theory blocks at 500 words per minute. Many theory blocks have become too short, in order for it to be viable – your block must consist of no fewer than 13 sub points. Ialso think affirmative are too likely to jump the gun here, below are my preferences for theory, please keep your debate within the confines of this list

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Good – Consult, condition, process, word pics, Veto Cheato, delay, utopian/vauge alts, conditionality (only if over 3), international fiat, object fiat <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Bad – dispo, condo (if under 2), neg fiat, agent counterplans, advantage counterplans


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Topicality **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – Maybe a thing. Might cause genocide, I am undecided. I evaluate these through a lens of reasonability, no matter what the debaters say. I feel my gut is a more objective evaluation than anything else. That being said, I occasionally find myself voting negative as I evaluate T through offense – defense. Most affirmative fail to win an offensive reason their way of being topical is good. T substantial is a thing, please go for this more. I will keep this updated on what my gut feels is substantial.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Blake 2012 – 50% <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Berkley 2013 – 75% <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">IHSA 2013 – 20% <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Niles 2013 – this is stupid/ definitions are arbitrary <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Michigan 2013 – 90%


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Disads **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – These are normally an uphill battle for me. There are very few that are actually intrinsic and those that are I feel the affirmative can normally fiat out of the link. The more contrived you can make your internal link chain, the better. I default to defense – offense, thus a little bit of impact defense outweighs an overwhelming risk of offense. New disads in the block are a good things, it keeps the debate exciting. I response to this, I think most affirmative teams should impact turn.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I only evaluate topical counter-plans, anything else is abusive an unpredictable. Too many affirmative teams try going for a "permutation." One can not simply 'permute' a counterplan, congress can only do one thing at a time! <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5;">The negative probably shouldn’t be able to fiat at all. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">However, In the interest of good and entertaining debate, I have allowed the following counterplans <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Word pics <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Pictograms <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Consult (only if the agency doesn’t make any sense in terms of the topic and your reading 20 year old backfiles) <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Conditions <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Some process (I will determine by coin flip during the round) <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Veto Cheato <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Secret Friday <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Blue pen <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Any other plan plus counterplan
 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Counterplans **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> –


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Impact turns **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – Yes always. I think affirmatives are never very prepared to defend their impacts. However, these normally suffer from underdevelopment. In order to get my ballot going for these, they must constitute 8 minutes of the 1nc, or at the very least 13 minutes of the block.


 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Kritiks **<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> – When I had debated back in the good old days, these weren’t invented yet. However, in the decades since then I have come to rather enjoy these arguments. I like to roll with Giving Back the Land or Reparations, but anything works. One off Batille particularly interests me. I think these debates are best when they are confusing and abstract. I like buzz words, I really do, I think debaters underuse them. I think affs are normally hopelessly far behind in these debates, but they still manage to win because the negative did something to anger me. It is a nonstarter to try to argue that objective reality or “science” is a thing in front of me. Instead I think affirmatives should simply kick the plan and preform interpretive dance for the next 8 minutes.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- In response to critical affirmatives, I think the negatives best bet is one off of the same author. I believe these debates are both interesting and academically stimulating. The 2 cases I believe this is most applicable to are Zizek – Zizek debates and Baudrillard – Baudrillard debates.
 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Update Berkley 2013 **

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- I have now decided alts should be fiated. They should have both an actor and a specific process of implementation.
 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Update Niles 2013 **

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">- I have grown to love Wilderson/whiteness debates. I think burning down the world is a good idea. However, I will only vote for this argument if it is run by a rich white school.
 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Update New Trier 2013 **