Glendenning,+Jake

Experience Debating/Judging: College Parli Judging Philosophy:

Hey. I’m Jake. I debated four and a half years of NPDA/NPTE style debate. 2.5 at Irvine Valley College and 2 at UC Berkeley. As a general principle, you’re best off debating in the way you’re most accustomed or will have the most fun. I was a part of this activity because it was fun and I enjoyed it, and encourage others to do the same. I will insert myself into your round as little as possible. Quick Hits > -I value creativity quite a bit. If I haven’t seen it before and it makes me think a lot, it’s likely to get higher speaker points than the same consult counterplan I’ve run and seen 100 times. Disads -Disads are great. I like nuanced, well researched disads. Politics, relations, whatever. Have specific links to the plan and all that.
 * I almost always defended the resolution as a debater, though not necessarily fiat. This means that I am not intimately familiar with arguments justifying the rejection of the resolution, so if that is a strategy you’re going for, you should probably err on the side of caution and explain your arguments in depth.
 * As a debater I debated about half critical and half policy. I’m a fan of a good, nuanced politics disadvantage, as well as a well-researched, well-warranted K. I find post-modernism, post-structuralism, and existential type positions to be the most philosophically interesting when run well. I’m relatively familiar with Baudrillard, Foucault, Nietzsche, Deleuze (and his work with Guattari to a lesser extent), Hardt+Negri, and Butler. I find more sociologically-based K literature (race, gender, colonialism, ability) persuasive, but not as much fun to explore on a philosophical level. I think Agamben’s philosophy is garbage, though understand its strategic utility in debate. I feel similarly about a lot of marxist authors, though I also enjoy some very much.
 * I default to my flow. I adhere to it whenever possible, and don’t intuitively know how to evaluate arguments that ask me to do otherwise, so please be very clear if you are going to go this direction with the debate.
 * My degree is in Political Science and I did most of my research in Comparative Politics and International Economics, for whatever that’s worth. I’m also a bit of a current events hack.
 * On speed, if you don’t know the other team’s comfortability with speed, ask. I liked debating fast, but that doesn’t mean everyone does and I don’t much care for the use of speed to beat less experienced teams.

-When you kick them, please extend actual arguments, and not just “the defense” Case debate -It’s great!

-For my flow’s sake, please let me know if you have a separate sheet of case defense/case turns. I usually referred to this as a “dump” as a debater. Counterplans -Counterplans are also awesome.

-I have no real disposition for or against condo (and think I may be the only person Kevin Calderwood has coached with that in their philosophy), but found that I won more going unconditional as a debater. I probably had a bit more fun going condo though, so you do you. Just win the arguments.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-I really don’t have any dispositions against “cheater” counterplans, but found them very easy to beat as a debater. Feel free to run delay, veto cheto, conditions, consult, whatever, but theoretically justify it, and be prepared to not get very high speaker points. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">T <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Other Theory <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The K > -On K affs, I value being creative within the confines of the resolution very much. A topical, non-fiat K aff would be preferable to rejection of the resolution. I also find it really cool when a team can come up with creative definitions of words in the resolution to make their performance or identity based positions topical.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I default to competing interpretations, but am fine evaluating theoretical questions through different frameworks if the arguments are made.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">RVIs are an uphill battle in front of me. This is probably the issue where I have the hardest time staying objective. You’re going to have to really sell it if you want me to vote on an RVI, and even then you’re taking a risk.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I’ve always enjoyed that the rules of debate are debateable. I think if you can demonstrate how ground loss took place, it’s going to be easier to win.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I have seen beautiful, nuanced, specific uses of spec arguments and shamefully bad, vague, and slapdash ones. The former will get you higher speaks.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">On disclosure theory, I ran this argument quite a bit, and am fine voting on it. My interpretation was usually “If the affirmative chooses not to defend the resolution using fiat, they should notify the negative with no less than 10 minutes left in prep-time if the negative asked them to before prep” and I never ran into any of the contrived hypotheticals that opponents of disclosure theory bring up every time the issue recirculates on facebook or net-bens.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I very much enjoy the K debate. I have at least a shallow understanding of most K lit I’ve heard of. I find warrants very persuasive, especially in the K debate, and find that they can often help resolve difficult questions in K debates that devolve to claim v claim issues.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I don’t think many teams actually explain how their alt solves their K a lot of the time. It’s more often than not just a bunch of perm preempts, and maybe a claim without a warrant. I’d appreciate it if you really articulated how your alt solves.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I don’t think a K needs an alt in a “methods debate” or when the aff is a K, depending on what kind of specific framework the aff roles with.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I think if there is an alt in a “methods debate” it makes intuitive sense that the aff maybe shouldn’t have a perm, so I’m generally receptive to that argument.

HS Judging Philosophy:

I'm a recently graduated debater from UC Berkeley's NPDA team. I competed in NPDA/NPTE style parliamentary debate and have done NFA: LD for two of those. I’ve coached high school parli extensively, but have also coached individuals competing in PuFo, VCX, VLD. I’ve also judged all these events at several tournaments. It’s worth noting that the type of debate I compete in now is more similar in a many ways to Team Policy than Parli on the high school level. As a general overview, I have different opinions on different types of arguments based on the activity. For example, since the 1AR in LD is only 4 minutes, I’m generally a bit more lenient on theory against counterplans/criticisms or condo bad. Also, I view debate as a game to be won. I try to intervene as little as possible, but having judged and competed in countless rounds at this point I acknowledge that a certain degree of judge intervention is probably inevitable. I am a relatively gamey debater. I often run multiple conditional strategies and strategic procedural arguments, but also love a good straight-up debate on the topic. LD-Specific stuff I haven’t judged LD in a little while and haven’t coached it in even longer, so I likely won’t be very deep in the lit on positions being run, especially the more nuanced frameworks. Speaking of frameworks, I’m much more familiar and receptive to util, but if you have particularly interesting deont arguments, or are just more confident in the deont debate, feel free to run your positions, just slow down a bit on your tags and spend more time than you think you need to in the rebuttals. Speaker Points I can generally be a bit of a speaks fairy, especially when teams read creative positions in front of me. These can be a particularly interesting K or a politics scenario with a nuanced link story. I enjoy originality. I tend to give slightly higher speaks in LD and CX than in parli. My average is about 28.5 for the former two and 27.5-28 for the latter. General thoughts on arguments DAs - Yep. Run them. I love a good, nuanced DA with a lot of warrants. Impact Calc is dope. It’s easier to win when you do it. CPs - Hell yeah. any and all types so long as you can justify them on a theoretical level. In general I err neg on CP theory on Agent CPs and Consult CPs. I err aff on process and floating pics. Make sure you slow down when reading your text. I also wouldn’t mind a copy. Kritiks - I’m a big fan of critiques. Run them. Get fancy with them. Ks with very specific links will win me over more than Ks that sound identical every round. I’m receptive to arguments that the aff gets to leverage its case under many K frameworks. K Affs - I enjoy a good K aff, but enjoy topical K affs much more than untopical K affs. I don’t think defending the implementation by a government actor is necessary to be topical. Feel free to affirm the res and defend your reps. I will vote and have voted on untopical/reject-the-res type affirmatives, but don’t generally care for them very much. Topicality/Theory - Run it. Run it strategically. I was once told by a good friend of mine that crafting a good interp is an art form and I find that statement more true every day. I will reward good interps with high speaker points. Also, the way to win theory is to do good weighing analysis on the standard level. Feel free to ask me specifics before the round.