Lassiter,+Jack

 Jack Lassiter - 2016-17 I competed in policy debate for six years. Gonzaga will be my first tournament judging this topic. Framework My experience with debate has left me with an appreciation for framework debates. I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any other direction [Any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below] The Kritik I have almost no rigid expectations or biases with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I don't claim much knowledge concerning the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, but I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with. Finally, my interest and work with continental philosophy primarily involves Heidegger, Levinas and Derrida. Topicality: I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it. Counterplans: Theory debates are great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan. I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions. Disads If you were to ask me for an explanation of the standard I would like to hold in my evaluation of uniqueness and link debates, I would want to read the first two sub-points from Calum Matheson's paradigm. Updates: Gonzaga 2016: Damien Debate - Berkeley 2016 <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decidingly important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I may on occaison request pieces of evidence, if thats the case it can be sent to my email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com