Linden,Jack

**Hello!**
 * Updated for Minneapple 2017**

**Background:** I am currently a sophomore at the University of Minnesota double majoring in physiology and economics. I debated at Eagan High School for four years in LD. I was also on the speech team for the same length of time. During my debate career I competed on both the local and national circuits. I judged quite a bit last season (2016/2017) but Minneapple will be my first tournament this season.

**Short version:** I am fine with virtually any kind of debate that you want to have. I find that the most interesting debates are ones where both debaters are running arguments that they actually find interesting, no matter how abstract the arguments may be. That being said, I’ll vote off of pretty much anything if it is run well and I can understand it.

**Speed/Logistical Stuff:** Speed is fine to a certain degree but I would slow down A LOT for tags, impacts and short numbered/lettered arguments. I probably cannot flow you at your top speed if you are not extremely clear. I have been away from the activity for quite some time now and my ability to flow at high levels is probably in the dumpster at this point. I will say clear twice, but after that I might just stop flowing if you aren’t making an effort to slow down. At that point I can’t guarantee that I will have any idea what your arguments are. You will know in the RFD and through speaker points if that is any consolation.

I do not care if you sit or stand. Lay on the floor for all I care. As long as you are comfortable the room set-up doesn’t matter much to me.

You should have some way of transferring your arguments to your opponent. A flash drive is preferable, but paper passing is alright too. Looking over their shoulder and seeing the case in prep time is not desirable and may hurt your speaks if it becomes annoying (I would probably only enforce this preference on the national circuit). I’m not super in love with disclosure theory unless someone outright refuses to share anything with their opponent. If you run it just for fun be aware that I will be far more receptive to responses against it.

**Framework**: I like debates where there is well thought out framework comparison. Make an effort to link into your opponent's framework and or show why I need to prefer yours for the round. I suppose one traditional aspect of my judging preferences is that when it comes to a substance debate I really want to see a clear winner on the framework to make the rest of the contention level offense easier to evaluate under the winning framework. Just a side note, a lot of debaters seem to have this interesting idea that if they win the framework then they don't need to spend time linking their own contention level the framework. I will be very sad if you do this. Keep in mind that framework is not offense so be sure to link impacts into your own as well as your opponent's framework.

**Theory**: Theory is perfectly fine as long as it is legitimate. I most likely have a higher threshold (pain tolerance) for theory than most other judges. Do not interpret this as though I really like theory. Generally speaking, I think that the educational benefits of a debate can be squandered when theory gets involved. However, I am also someone who often becomes bored with basic, substantive arguments and do like a change of pace. I don’t presume that theory is an RVI but I’m sympathetic to that argument (especially on the affirmative). I’m more likely to grant an RVI if there is sufficient turn ground on the standards. If there is not then I’ll just evaluate substance. I default to drop the argument. I’m generally not a fan of drop the debater unless there is actually abuse. Do not feel like you cannot run theory for strategic reasons in front of me, but just know that I will have a much lower threshold for responses, especially if the shells suck or there isn’t legitimate abuse. On that note, I default to competing worlds, however truth-testing or any other interpretation is fine.

**Topicality:** Go for it. Please know that specific evidence for your argument as to why they aren't topical is best.

**Plans/CP:** CPs are perfectly fine but please make sure you have a full understanding of its implications in relation to the specific AC before running it. This probably sounds like a given, however, I get really sad when I read/hear CPs that have essentially no competition whatsoever. I’m probably not going to be very likely to vote you up if if cannot properly articulate these arguments. Specific evidence against a type of CP gets you bonus points.

I don't mind plans but they haven't ever been my absolute favorite, usually because I find most plans boring and annoyingly specific. Just make sure that you slow down for the text and important tags. If it is creative then there is a far higher chance that I will enjoy it.

**Kritiks:** I really enjoy a good K debate. Please do not hesitate to run them. I ran a lot of kritiks in high school so I can most likely say I know how they function. That being said, you NEED to explain the K very well to me. Make the link(s) very clear and attempt to have a decent alternative/role of the ballot. Abstract alts need more explanation and just plain bad ones will make me sad. Of course specific topic literature is best and super generic cards/authors that can be used on every topic aren't quite as desirable. However, put your own spin on the kritik. It’s probably my favorite type of argument so I’ll be all ears to any strategy. Keep in mind that you should not assume that I have ever read anything from or even heard of your authors. Sure, I’ve read a great deal from a specific group of authors but whatever it is that you may be reading will most likely be completely new to me. It will make me very sad if you cannot explain your arguments clearly and concisely in cross-examination as well as in rebuttals. If you explain the arguments well, run whatever you want and I will most likely enjoy it.

**Dis-ads:** Yes. Show clear link story. Uniqueness is cool too. Much like K’s, creative and specific dis-ads are fun to hear so don’t hesitate.

**Tricks:** No. If they aren’t displayed clearly in the first speech then I’m fine with treating them as new arguments and will accept new responses. Please do not read an AC with four minutes of short spikes or I seriously might fall asleep. Additionally, I really don’t like presumption/permissibility arguments. For both of our sakes, don’t run them.

**Skepticism:** I guess. I’ll try my best to evaluate. If you successfully pull off the true love response to skepticism then I’ll bump your speaks up a bit.

**Performances/LARP:** I’m fine with these but I also don't think that I am the best judge to run them in front of because I may not be able to evaluate them as well as you want me to. I would occasionally run into such arguments but certainly didn't run them when I debated so keep in mind that I have very little experience with evaluating. I certainly will not reject it, especially if it is interesting and well put together. Go for it and I will do my best to make a quality decision, but proceed with caution.

**Arguments I won’t vote for:**
 * 1) Arguments that are blatantly offensive to me or your opponent.
 * 2) Naturally, I’m against arguments like racism good, rape culture good, or any other types arguments which justify oppression.

THAT BEING SAID, if you want to run something like extinction good, or something wacky in that realm of debate then I will be okay with it as long as you say why it leads to the end of oppression or some intuitively “positive” end result. My threshold is usually low. Pretty much, run whatever you want, as crazy as it might be. I do really like abstract and creative arguments so I’ll evaluate them as best I can.

**Things that will make me most sad:**
 * Wasting time with flash drives (some time is okay, but don't take advantage of the opportunity)
 * Being really rude to anyone in the room
 * If the NC is pre-fiat, you really don't need to spend three minutes extending the substantive AC arguments unless they were contested. If the debate does come down to substance, a short extension will most likely be sufficient if the negative doesn't have offense on the AC
 * Pointless value debates such as Morality < Justice
 * Forcing me to intervene in the result of poorly clashing arguments
 * Shaking my hand after the round
 * Arguing with the decision and asking about speaker points following the round…
 * Not knowing the speech times…

**Speaker points:** I haven't ever really been a speaker point fairy. I really think that debaters should work to earn speaker points. I like a high spirited debate, but don't be too rude, especially during CX. Speaking ability will NOT factor into who wins the round. I will vote on the arguments that win the round. I will probably start at a 27.5 and move up or down depending on how well you argue.

Points will be given as follows- 30: You should win the tournament and most other tournaments in which you run this strategy 29: You debated excellently, definitely deserve to break and go far 28: You debated very well and should have a winning record 27: You debated pretty well, there is room for improvement 26: You debated a bit lackluster 25: I’m unsure if you were on the same wavelength as where this round was going 24 or lower: You have done something offensive or made me mad * If you are facing someone who is clearly a significantly lower experience/skill level and you are blatantly abusive I will take what speaker points I was going to give you and subtract 8:)

**In conclusion:** It comes down to this: make clear links, claims, warrants and impacts. Write my ballot for me as they say. Be proud that you are a part of such a wonderful activity. Most importantly of all, have fun.