Jones,+Christian


 * Updated Last:** 9/12/2016
 * Affiliation:** Union HS, Tulsa, OK (2011-present)
 * Debated for:** Union HS, Tulsa, OK
 * Number of rounds judged on this year's policy topic:** 0
 * Number of years judging:** 12

Past: 5 years of HS debate, 4 time state qualifier, 2 time national qualifier, Assistant Coach for 2 years, 8th year as Head Coach, Coached NSDA out round teams. Present: Director of Forensics at Union Public Schools
 * Debate resume**

__**All Debates**__

In my view debate is a game. The game must be fair, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of the game will be played in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.
 * My General Paradigm**

I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.
 * Speed**

I prefer line by line debate, but I don't have a problem resetting the flow if the new organization makes sense. Overviews are helpful, but please apply your arguments. A dangling overview is just an introduction. If you don't make an application, don't expect me to. Also, please do not machine gun your theory arguments. They should have a warrant and enough explanation to give me time to flow effectively. 2-3 complete sentences will usually get the job done.
 * Flowing**

I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will help you accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. I view the truth/tech dichotomy to be a false one; truth and tech are two different aspects of a debate and both weigh in my decision.
 * Decision Calculus**

I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place.
 * Style**

30 (6) = Best speaker I expect to see at the tournament 29.9>29.5 (5) = Deserves a speaker award at the tournament 29.4>29 (4) = Excellent speaker, but has a few things to improve on 28.9>28.5 (4) = Great speaker, but has several things to improve on 28.4>28 (3) = Made some small mistakes, but was still enjoyable to listen to 28>27 (3) = Made large mistakes 27>26 (2) = Made several large mistakes that probably cost the round 26>0 (1) = Generally reserved for people who make direct insults toward a person or group of people or do not give their full effort in the debate
 * Speaker Points (Oklahoma ballots in parenthesis)**

__** Policy **__

I believe the best negative strategy is 8 minutes of case. If you can win enough turns against an affirmative to outweigh it, and you have significantly mitigated every other impact, you will win my ballot every time. I know it is unlikely that anyone will actually do this, for multiple reasons, but the importance of case debate can't be understated. Every negative should attack the affirmative case, even if it is only a handful of analytics on each flow. By the same token, if you are affirmative, don't forget about the 1AC. You read that stuff for a reason. Extend it.
 * Basics**

The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate. What you call it (role of the ballot, voting issue, impact framing, etc.) is not that important.
 * Framework**

If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.
 * Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)**

I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. Specific links are preferable to generic ones. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. I prefer more down to Earth ks to high theory. None of these preferences mean I will refuse to consider these things. I'm just trying to be honest.
 * Kritik**

I have no problem with this either, all of the kritik stuff applys here too. Performance rounds can be quite entertaining and enlightening. They can also be the opposite. I am open to forms of communication other than the default language of power that most debaters engage in.
 * Performance**

I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round (see Framework). That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card. Conditionality is okay, but let's not get carried away.
 * Counterplans**

I do not like it when a team defends two contradictory positions. I would prefer each side to have a consistent advocacy. A team may defend multiple actions (plan planks, counterplans, kritiks, etc.), but they should be consistent or at least not contradictory.
 * Multiple Worlds**

__**Lincoln Douglas**__ (coming soon; see "All Debates")

__**Public Forum**__ (coming soon; see "All Debates")