Johnson,+Jason

__**Affiliation/Experience:**__ I debated for Sioux Falls Lincoln High School for 3 years (1994-1997), assistant coach at Wayzata High School, MN for 4 years (1999-2003), and I am currently high school math teacher and the head coach at Henry Sibley High School in West St Paul/Mendota Heights, MN (2003-present).

__**Philosophy:**__ Overall, I feel that debate is the best form of education. Therefore, I take a very educational approach to debate. I really enjoy debates that are well researched with great clash and well-articulated warrants. However, I will also admit that I love the strategy and competition aspect too. In the end I am open to nearly every argument/strategy and try not to be too predisposed to any particular argument. I really enjoy debates where you explain how I should vote and why I should vote that way.

__**Micro/Macro Argumentation:**__ While I would consider myself to be a flow judge and really enjoy nuanced micro-level debate, I also am a fan of debaters telling me how all the arguments connect to the overall story. Hence, while dropping arguments is a good way to lose the round, you still need to explain how that drop functions in the larger story. I really enjoy 2NRs and 2ARs that can focus and explain how the arguments they are going for fit together. Going for fewer well developed arguments are important in the end.

__**Case/DAs:**__ I do enjoy good solvency debates and harms mitigation. In fact, the neg does need to typically have some case defense to outweigh with their DA. I also am a fan of DA's. Good case debate and DA's are usually a very effective approach for the negative. Usually, they need to be combined with a counterplan, but I will vote against the Aff if the neg can show the SQ is a slightly better policy. I love plan specific turns, because it shows me that you are well-researched and are not lazy.

__**Counterplans:**__ I believe that counterplans are essential for the negative. While I would vote for the SQ if the negative can prove that it outweighs the Affirmative plan, I believe that most topics always require a counterplan. I will listen and potentially vote for any type of counterplan, though I tend to give less weight to consult counterplans and process counterplans as the evidence is generally not as specific to the Aff plan. I also enjoy listening to and will pull the trigger on theory arguments IF they have strong links and the voter or impact is explained well. I tend to treat these arguments like topicality arguments. See Topicality below.

__**Topicality:**__ I truly enjoy well-developed Topicality arguments where the negative interpretation is supported with strong links to how education is either hurt in the round (in round abuse) or could be hurt by the Aff interpretation (potential for abuse). However, because I believe that debate is very educational, you have to explain to me what kind of education is undermined. Ideally, each side would explain how their type of education that they preserve outweighs the opposing team's type of education. Hence, I evaluate topicality similar to disads with links, impacts, and turns. Additionally, you would need to spend all of your rebuttal time in the 2NR. I will not vote on blippy T arguments! I also treat all theory arguments the same way. I also believe that T and procedurals come before critiques of T. However, I could be persuaded if you do a lot of work!

__**Theory:**__ Explained in Counterplans and Topicality above. I will vote on any theory argument if you spend all 5 minutes of the 1AR, 2NR, or 2AR if there are well-articulated links and impacts to the other team's strategy. However, I hate multiple independent voters. If there is a dropped blippy theory argument, I will only vote on it if the other team can give me strong reasons how education was hurt. Basically, go for one well-developed theory argument over blippy theory arguments. DO NOT simply read theory blocks without clash, and please have offense and not just defense. I could potentially vote on conditionality good if articulated well with offense on the flow.

__**Critiques:**__ While I default to CP/DA/Solvency framework, I will vote on the K if there are strong SPECIFIC links to the aff and a strong alternative that will capture case. I do also believe that every political action has critical implications. Yet, link cards are not enough for me to vote neg on the K. Moreover, you would probably only win a K if you spend the majority of the neg block extending/explaining it. You must also explain the arguments to me...DO NOT simply throw an author's name around and expect me to do the work for you! DO NOT assume I have read your authors. Even if I have I will not do the work for you.

__**Speed/Strategy/Performance:**__ I don't mind speed as long as you are clear, but I also don't think you always have to go fast. Stronger arguments that are delivered slower are preferable to blippy arguments delivered at a faster pace. If I don't hear a warrant to your analytical argument I will NOT flow it. I also enjoy creative strategies, but in the end you should run your strongest arguments that you are most familiar with as those tend to create the best debate. I also probably am averse to performance as I have never had to evaluate such a round. I prefer evidence to acting though. I suppose I could be persuaded, but most likely not. I tend to think good actors should spend their time in speech or theater.