Jackson,+Christopher

Updated 10/3/16 Christopherjpjackson@gmail.com (I want to be on your email chain) **Affilliations:** University of Iowa-undergraduate and member of the A. Craig Baird Debate Forum Ames High School '14 Iowa City City
 * Judged at:** Michigan camp tournament, New Trier, Badgerland

-Durable fiat is a thing. Trump rollback arguments are terrible for debate so unless the articulation in later speeches is really on-point, don't bother. -I find myself voting for critical arguments on the negative because the policy teams don't engage at all with the negative's arguments. I don't expect high school kids to be up on all the newest theories, or have specific blocks to articles with 3 cites on Google Scholar.
 * 2016-2017 updates**
 * 7 point for your pre-round prep.**

1) Debate genealogy matters. Some of the people who have influenced how I view debate include: Kyle Vint, Dr. David Hingstman, Kyle Joseph, Max Pilcher, Jamie Saker, Michigan KM. 2) I compete for the University of Iowa's debate team as a 2A. I usually defend the state. 4) I keep up with current events and try to keep up with most political theory/critical theory journals.. So I am best for debates between typical policy nonsense and strategies of resistance and everything in between. 5) I am a political science major most interested in political theory. Wolin and Arendt are standout influences. I am also pretty interested in existentialist writers (Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard, etc) as well as contemporary critical thought. So if you aff is about intersubjectivity, the panopticon, the public sphere, deliberative democracy, Heidegger, etc, I will be a good judge for you. I will be fine for you if you want to interrogate debate sensibilities, discuss politics large and small, or read Eurotrash philosophers. 6)An important caveat is that I am predisposed against affirmatives without an advocacy statement. And while I generally agree with the notion that all debate is performative in a significant sense, I am also skeptical about ones that engage primarily on that level.

**K/FW-T/Clash section**  Yes, I will vote for Wilderson, death good (BUT THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCHOPENHAUER-ESQUE ARGUMENTS AND RACISM/SEXISM GOOD AND YOU SHOULD RECOGNIZE THIS) , your queer theory K, state bad, dedev, whatever. As long as you can explain whatever your advocacy is clearly, I will (and probably have) voted for it. Examples and contextualizing to the debate=excellent and will be rewarded. My knowledge of the K lit is very area-specific (so I'd be fine with Arendt or Agamben, for instance, but my irigaray isn't fantastic) so you should ask me before round if you're have any questions. I need to be able to explain a decision well so your clarity in overviews in CX is something to prioritize. Bottom line, I am pretty good for the K. I might not personally believe it, but I **prefer to enact my normative beliefs in my college career, not in judging**. The points is to adjudicate who did better in the individual ROUND, not what I believe, which is why n**either side of this divide should find me exceptionally objectionable.** **DA** Not much to say here, i dig it, and **i love the** debate on the **elections DA.** **I have no problem assigning zero risk** because sometimes the risk of a link is so small that it should be functionally ejected (Reischer 03). **CP** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">The more specific the better, and as a 2A I hedge a little aff on theory questions because questionably competitive CP's plus the bloc=problems. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Arguments that annoy me** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-"fiat isn't real" <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-any argument that the aff can't weigh its case. I have a pretty high threshold to buy that.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Lincoln-Douglas <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I have been judging more LD this year than usual, but most of my experience is in other events. Looking at my policy paradigm will be useful. Value/criterion is helpful but not necessary. Although "circuit" LD has some pretty terrible elements to it, my focus on the flow means that no matter how much I dislike voting for blippy arguments, I find myself doing it.