Buddingh,+Jackson

Jackson Buddingh Dir. Debate at East Lansing.

FAQ: --Critiques, innovation, wacky counterplans, etc. : fine. Probably even good. Run what you're comfortable with. See below for more. --Tag-team, prompting: education is my standard. If you intervene and it makes your partner look uneducated, that's bad, but not as bad as the lack of an answer. --Speed: absolutely fine. I'll let you know if it's a problem for some reason. --Procedurals: I have a low threshold on Theory and Topicality, they are perfectly fine strategies --Any Arguments... landmines? No, there are no landmines with me, except arguments which function to exclude those participating (ones emp loying sexist language, for example.) Since I don't fin d some a rguments very intellectually stimulating, you should pursue a stylistic change, being technical and quick, to hold my interest: _spec's (I usually think that the vagueness invites the counterplan, pending a good cross-x, if they make the dodgey answer, it's an easy case to punish them), T-resolved through T-should, probably T-substantial, consult/conditioning counterplans, politics, generic actor counterplans, Rights Malthus, Objectivism, Spark, Class-only Marxism, and other, similar arguments. --New in the 2: hopefully not too new, finishing a disad or expanding a case turn are fine, new off case I tend to think are a poor choice.

Quirks: --I tend to think that evidence is better than analysis only on factual rather than logical/analytical claims. --I think that arguments mentioned in cross-x (c-x of the 2ac then extended in 1ar, for example) or prep time discussions are predictable and don't get excluded as carefully as other new arguments in late rebuttals. --I think that gendered language (and similar assumptions) aren't automatic voters. That would require a winning argument from the other team. I do think that because of the academic community we are a part of, things like gendered language, negative comments about opponents' dress, or any behavior that exhibits a presumptive or prejudicial attitude should be discouraged strongly. I'll look to speaker points/say something if I think it's getting out of hand. --I tend to think of 'vote negative' or 'reject' as the status quo. It depends. If the aff says so or gets to weigh the case vs. the alternative, then it is so. If the negative wants to make it 'vote neg/reject //and// work towards a non-capitalist future, or reject all instances of capitalism, or adopt a revolutionary perspective and root out the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie's propositions... etc. that's fine, but I may want more than to vote for a 'party of no.'
 * --your card text is more important than your tags... I try to flow your warrants even at the expense of a tag/cite since evidence/argument quality and justification is immensely important.**

About Me: I've been coaching since 2004, debated 4 years in hs, 2 years for Michigan State. I do a lot of work for my team and tend to be quite familiar with the topic. I'm interested in philosophy, ethics, and international relations and development. **I am a gay, vegetarian, socialist who lives in a cooperative (and I find some of your red-baiting arguments hilarious, even when you don't**). I enjoy judging and like to help debaters improve and to write out a full ballot-- I am not the college judge who's on facebook or texting during the round.

Judging methodology: I look carefully at the line-by-line to make my decision, it's a crucial memory tool. I tend to flow warrants and not tags, so be careful since I'll probably use the time you use to say your tag and cite to write down the reasons your last card gave me. This means that the reasons why your claims are true are the primary medium of comparison in my decision as they are my reference points for what was said. I don't tend to call for cards-- I'll listen while you read it and try to use your claims to evaluate the evidence, of course, if I need to tie-break between teams, I'll read some evidence. My favorite debates are fast and technical. I like offence-defense comparisons, discussing both the direction and magnitude of uniqueness/brinks, links, and impacts. I like to think it's easy to gauge how I feel about an argument/question/etc during the round by looking at my face or seeing if I am flowing. I like to think this is related to the notion that methodology and **communication is always a two-way street.** I write very tiny on one large sheet of paper, that means I can cross-apply really fast (and will if you mis-sign-post me.) I have a sense of humor and tell jokes about the round to myself when I am bored. I don't tend to flow new 2AR/2NR arguments as well, or repetitive arguments. I was a 2n... I protect the 2nr. I protect the 2nr. **I protect the 2NR**. So much so that the 1AR should be nervous if it wasn't in the 2AC or isn't clearly reactive to the block. There are marginal cases, e.g. if an argument was mentioned in the debate, or an aff advantage that hadn't been heard of since the 1ac but is found in the 1ar again. Oddly, **I also protect the 1AR** from new 2NR arguments that aren't reactive too... negs should do the bulk of their analysis in the block. Besides, new in the 2NR wastes valuable time-- you barely have time to answer the 1AR, extend the block, and answer the 2AR.

Pet Peeves: --I don't like it when one team doesn't finish a position and then doesn't either immediately promise to kick it or commit to the impact going one way/the other (no sandbagging.) --2NR questions that include, “can I get what the 1AR extended” -- these arguments should've been already read/answered by the block. --I'm a philosophy major... Consequentialism is simply that consequences matter (as opposed to orientation/deontology) consequences can be moral outcomes, further, utilitarianism isn't about a body count, it's really about maximizing good (which isn't necessarily just life) for a maximal number of people. --I'm not a great fan of the Zimmerman card about ontology out-weighing nuclear war-- he answers the argument at the bottom of the card, in the footnote he makes on the point, and he's really just speculating about what Heidegger would think, not endorsing it. You want the card from Heidegger, in his Discourse on Thinking. There's actually a couple of cards in there. Ask me for the cites. --I'm also not a great fan of cards authored by members of the debate community, although I understand the arguments on both sides of that issue.

Appendices: I have a variety of facial expressions. I may look confused-- but I could be confused why you're making the argument you're making, or, a less frequently, what the argument is that you're making. Covering my face is generally bad, like a “wrong way” sign. Me looking strained or attentive is probably good, I'm listening intently. Putting my pen down means you're repeating yourself. **How I vote will have nothing to do with my mood, but my general level of dismay and crabbyness should give you clues as to how well you are performing.**