Jordan,+Todd

Judge philosophy Todd Jordan Debate Experience: University of Kansas 5 years Coach for UMKC 2 years Rounds judging on topic” 60+

General issues: I’ll listen to about any argument. You win the arg and why it’s important then you will win the debate. SPARK, wipeout, Agamben, Plan flaw, whatever. As long as the argument passes my make sense test (ie is there a claim and a warrant) then it is fine

T- My default position is the aff should be topical but I am perfectly willing to listen to arguments why the aff do not need to be bound to the topic. I personally feel that T debates are boring but if that’s your thing (or your only option) then go with it. I tend to allow the aff some flexability when it comes to T as opposed to strict adherance to competing interpretations.

Framework debates- About as boring as T and usually irrelevant to how the debate should be decided. But I respect that they have a certain strategic value so if it has to be discussed that’s fine.

The 1ac structure- Traditional or critical, Khalizad or performance, Mearsheimer or Beliker. Either defend the resolution or explain why you don’t want to defend the resolution and what you will be willing to defend as an advocacy.

Counterplan/Counter-advocacy- As long as it is in some way competitive with the affirmative advocacy then it is fine. I would prefer a text for the CP. I believe it is the negatives burden to define and defend the theoretical status of the CP. I do tend to default neg on most counterplan theory questions (ie PICs are legit, Dispo is fine, Topical counterplans are ok etc.) but I will still vote on CP theory. Aff probably needs to win the perm to beat CP’s unless they got some sort of devastating impact turn.

Kritiks-I’ve got a decent feel for most of the critical literature out there. While not always necessary the vast majority of the time the alternative will be crucial for you. As with the counterplan that aff will probably have to win a perm to win these debates unless you have a sweet impact turn.

Disadvantages/case debates- These are good things that should be run. The more specific to the aff the better

Random notes: This judging philosophy is just a general guide to my thinking. Anything can happen in the debate round so don’t be upset if a decision I make is not 100% consistent with your interpretation of my judging philosophy.