Jeffers,+Greg

My name is Gregory Jeffers and I am a PhD student in English at the University of Texas at Arlington. I graduated from High School in 2008, having competed in LD at the local, state, and national levels.


 * How I view the burdens of the debaters.** I think the names of the two sides in the round effectively describe the burdens of the two debaters. The affirmative must affirm the resolution, that is, the affirmative must advocate the resolution in its entirety as true. The negative must seek to disprove the resolution. Moreover, in that each side is appealing to what is true, I disregard discourse and micro political arguments which ask me to do something with my ballot other than say who proved the resolution true/false. In addition, I only evaluate arguments in light of their truth in relation to whatever standard has been set up. Absent any offense being extended from either side, I will flip a coin to determine the winner, though I am sympathetic to presumption arguments that appeal to logic and the structure of the debate round.


 * Speed.** While I debated on the national circuit, and thus encountered speed, that was several years ago. As I grow older, and as I study rhetoric as an academic discipline, I am growing less impressed with speed and more impressed with conciseness. If you go too fast, I’ll tell you to slow down, but ignore me at risk of me not understanding your arguments. If you are being incredibly blippy or reading dense philosophy, you need to slow down. If you have a problem pronouncing words, then you also need to slow down.


 * Theory.** By theory I mean arguments that appeal to standards like fairness/education, or any kind of argument that isn't directly concerned with the truth or falsehood of the resolution. I do not evaluate arguments that appeal to such standards. I do not care if an argument is fair, educational, or depressing. I care whether it is true or not. There may be situations where I down a debater for excessive rudeness or for being too offensive, but I will make that decision on my own without you pointing it out.


 * Prestandards. (This is taken directly from Kris Wright's Paradigm.)** The use of prestandard arguments (i.e., those mistakenly referred to as “a priori”) is fine so long as (a) there is a clear and well substantiated reason for them to operate as offensive prior to the explicit standard; (b) there is an explanation of how we can make sense of how one can prove the resolution true or not true prior to the explicit standard as well as through that standard; and (c) there is a very clear and well substantiated decision calculus for adjudicating between prestandard arguments in the round. If (c) is missing (or is fairly incomplete) I will do my best to extrapolate the decision calculus from what is explicitly said in the round. If doing so requires me to do more work than I feel comfortable doing, I will adjudicate through the standards, which entails ignoring prestandard arguments.


 * The flow.** I flow pretty well. I use the flow as the basis for my decision. If an argument is not on my flow, it doesn't get evaluated. I hold you fully responsible for making sure I flow your arguments. Obviously you cannot go new in the two, which is pretty much the only concession I make to fairness. It is entirely unlikely that I will be looking at you during the round, I will be flowing. If I am looking at you it’s either during CX or it is because you are being incoherent.


 * Framework of the debate.** I default to the standard as the weighing mechanism. This is not to say you cannot have an alternate way of doing things, just justify it for me. I love the game, the tactics, and the strategy of debate, and am open to almost endless variations.


 * Weird stuff.** I am not opposed to narratives, but you need to clearly articulate how it is I am evaluating the narrative. In terms of kritiks based on so-called critical literature, you will need to clearly explain the argument and give a way for me to evaluate it within the confines of the round. Other types of kritiks, things I define as questioning the truth of certain assumptions made in the resolution, are cool, and I nurse a special love for them. I believe these types of kritiks are negative ground in that they disprove the truth statement that is the resolution. That said, I think that when negatives run these types of kritiks they place all of their offense in one basket. You cannot logically run a kritik that says we cannot evaluate what ought be done and at the same time turn the AC and garnish offense linking to the aff's standard for what ought be done. In this sense, your kritik better be excellent if you are going to run it.


 * Presentation.** I am increasingly old school about this. As a scholar studying rhetoric, and as a college instructor who evaluates students' presentations, I think it is important that you dress and act professionally. Remain calm. Do not be rude. Stand during CX and during your speeches. You may not engage in the unseemly practice of "flex-prep." Address me during your speeches, not your opponent. While failing to be professional won't lose you the round, it will directly affect speaker points.

If you have any questions, please ask.