Jennings,+Joshua

Updated – October 9, 2015

For CX:

Summary - Run anything you want, go for what you're good at, try new things if you want, Don't be rude.

About me - I debated at Crosby highschool and middle school for a collective 6 years and I am currently a University of Houston policy debater, and this is my third year (as of 2015-2016 season). I love debate, I think it's fun and it can produce really productive discussions, this is not to say I won't listen to a Debate bad type argument.

Arguments I have gone for and go for a lot – Reps PIK’s, Capitalism k/Historical Materialism, De-dev, Heg bad, Indigeneity/Decol k, Heidegger k, Politics DA, case specific DAs, case specific CPs, Word PICs, probably some more.

I am fine with almost any argument, so if you want to run it I'll listen, unless it's things like racism or patriarchy good. Keep this in mind: Even though I say I prefer or don’t prefer certain arguments, I will evaluate them as fairly and objectively as possible, so if you like that type of debate then debate that way, you don’t need to over adapt to me, I am pretty chill and will vote on most things and try to evaluate it through the lens of both teams arguments.

1ars, Don’t be afraid to read as many cards as you want in the 1ar, as long as the cards respond to or extend pre-existing arguments.

On topicality and theory, I default reasonability, but it is all based on how you argue, and what is convincing, obviously. I don't like watching theory debates, but encourage you to read theory, because it'll help you in the long run, also I will still vote on it, I just think the debates are normally very shallow. On effects and extra T, I have yet to be convinced these are bad if the aff doesn’t claim net benefits off of it, if they do claim net benefits, I think there is a debate as to why that it can be good/bad, but that’s why you have to debate it.

On kritiks, You HAVE TO explain the alternative, in debate people get away with not doing that, too much, which is annoying as a judge. Also it doesn't produce good advocacy skills. I like when the link is contextualized to the aff (give specific analysis about how the aff makes the system of oppression worse or prevents it from changing.) This is not to say I won’t vote on a generic or omission link, but you have to be pretty convincing as to why omission/generality is a voter in itself (i.e. ethics, omission = commission, etc). I do default util/policy if there is no other framework or impact framing. Keep this in mind, if your goal for framework is “to weigh the aff” then there is no real reason to read framework, (I cannot think of a single instance in which I have allowed the neg team to just say “don’t evaluate their aff,” nor have I ever been convince that “there are just too many different frameworks”), unless there is a simulation bad argument, which you could probably suffice with just reading policy good (or whatever your framework is). I do not like floating PIKs, I think if someone introduces a floating PIK in the 2nc, the 1ar can read theory about it (this doesn’t mean I don’t like 1nc PIKs).

On Counterplans, I love good counterplans, as long as your story on the world of the cp is clear and you're winning a net benefit that you solve, you should be fine. I don't particularly like delay, consult, conditions cp's, or word pics, but if you justify it, I could vote on it, (I used to run some of these so I understand them and you can win a theory debate with them, I just personally think they’re abusive, also I will try to be as objective as possible on the theory part of the debate).

On Disads, I suggest coupling it with case and as long as you explain all the parts, you should be fine if it outweighs. I like impact weighing a lot, and not just timeframe, probability, magnitude, but also more creative things, like maybe the DA solves case somehow, that's for you to play around with.

Non-traditional Affs - I will evaluate any affirmative even if it's non-policy, just make sure if you're untopical, you have a reason to be untopical. Framework – I am not afraid to vote on this, I think there are benefits to policy debate and disadvantages to kritik aff debates (the reverse is true as well for me) you just have to make and explain those arguments. If you want me to evaluate this as T or as a Method DA/AIK, then let me know.

Speed - Go for it. I will not say clear if you're unclear, unless its egregious and if you're unclear I probably can't flow you well. (I have never seen someone so unclear I couldn’t understand them).

Specificity vs. Generic – specific positions against an aff are always more fun, but if you have to read a generic argument/link try to contextualize the link. Also in link comparison, keep in mind for me that specificity ONLY OUTWEIGHS the generic link if the specific link answer the generic link’s warrant (unless obviously if that generic warrant doesn’t make sense in the context of the aff). That’s not to say specificity isn’t a good thing for link defense/turns but it doesn’t single-handedly win the link debate because it doesn’t necessarily invalidate the other person’s link story (this is just so that it promotes actual link clash, because “our evidence is more specific” is a reason to prefer an argument but isn’t an argument, it usually is used in the place of the actual link debate.)

Final and MOST important - Don't be rude or disrespectful, not only is it frustrating to the person you're being rude to but it's also frustrating to the judge, It will hurt your speaker points, and I will tell you to stop being rude. Also, I don’t like yelling (although Rage good arguments are an exception).

For LD:

I’ve judged a lot of LD debates, so I feel like I am good enough, maybe not the optimal judge, but I’ll try my best. I am a CX debater normally so do what you want with that info.

I will evaluate almost any argument, I tend to think of the debate round on the bigger picture focus (mainly because the 1ar I feel is rough and it allows better debates for LD).

You can run a plan in LD, this doesn’t mean I won’t vote on Whole Rez good however if the neg wins that. CP: I think CPs make the most sense vs plans and I can be convinced they’re illegit if you’re a whole rez team and you have an ethical view means policy doesn’t matter type arguments (all up for debate).

K: You HAVE TO explain the alternative, in debate people get away with not doing that, too much, which is annoying as a judge. Also it doesn't produce good advocacy skills. I like when the link is contextualized to the aff (give specific analysis about how the aff makes the system of oppression worse or prevents it from changing.) This is not to say I won’t vote on a generic or omission link, but you have to be pretty convincing as to why omission/generality is a voter in itself (i.e. ethics, omission = commission, etc).

Speed - Go for it. I will not say clear if you're unclear, unless its egregious and if you're unclear I probably can't flow you well. (I have never seen someone so unclear I couldn’t understand them).

Final and MOST important - Don't be rude or disrespectful, not only is it frustrating to the person you're being rude to but it's also frustrating to the judge, It will hurt your speaker points, and I will tell you to stop being rude. Also, I don’t like yelling (although Rage good arguments are an exception).