Grimstad,+Jordan

I debated for four years at Edina High School in Edina, MN and was coached by Jake Gelfand and Jess Bailey. I’m currently a sophomore at Washington University in St. Louis. I debated in two national circuit tournaments my junior year and five or six in my senior year. I also attended NSD in 2005 and 2007 and NDF in 2006. I personally debated with a very aggressive, fast, technical style (with varying degrees of success).
 * Background **

I appreciate one major thing in rounds: substance. Rounds that are devoid of warrants (and, equally importantly, impacts) are boring and pointless to listen to. Interesting, non-stock substance is far superior to stock substance. Non-stock non-substance is far inferior to stock substance. (I guess non-stock non-substance is better than stock non-substance, but let’s hope that you don’t have to make that choice.) Since I appreciate substance, you can do whatever you want to pursue this. That means any case structures (value/criterion model, criterion only model, syllogism, kritiks, theory, irony/performances, etc.) are all AOK as long as you explain them in a substantive and (hopefully) educational manner. (Caveat: if the argument has nothing to do with the resolution or arguments presented in round, I’ll be very receptive to any argument against them, no matter how substantively they are presented.) I am receptive to progressive philosophy and argumentation, as long as you can explain them completely and coherently. I know a bit about postmodern and post-structuralist philosophy, but assume that I know nothing about it if you’re arguing it in front of me, because I’m going to do my best not to make arguments for you. Aside from using warrants and impacts (which should be obvious), weighing is greatly appreciated. I will weigh the round (i.e. prioritize and compare arguments) however the debaters tell me to. Furthermore, I would prefer if you would actually take the time to compare arguments (or worldviews, however you think of it) in a coherent and logical manner rather than just doing the unsubstantiated ‘//TIMEFRAME!!! MAGNITUDE!!!’// stuff. Even if you are poor at it, attempting to do it is far better than not attempting at all.
 * Philosophy (How I Judge Rounds) **

Generally, speaking speed is of no concern to me. Go as fast or as slow as you want. Whatever you do, please speak clearly. I will not shout anything if you are being unclear, and it is your responsibility to police yourself. Persuasion is a plus (crushing someone underneath a mound of arguments is very persuasive to me). Making me laugh and/or making a coherent, relevant reference to //Family Guy//, //South Park//, //Entourage//, //The Simpsons//, //Arrested Development//, or any professional poker will get you high marks (this assumes I’m not laughing at you).
 * Speaking ** **(How I Assign Points)**

<25 = You’ve been rude/racist/sexist/inexcusably stupid at some point before, during, or after the round. (Special note: resorting to arguing about the Holocaust will usually put you on the fast track to a sub-25. However, these stupid comments do provide good conversation material for judges.) 25 = You have a great lack of persuasive skills, argumentative skills, think that “word economy” refers to the dictionary trade, etc. 26 = You’re lacking in the essential skills, or might be greatly lacking in all skills but one, etc. 27 = You’re decent but are not particularly impressive 28 = You were quite persuasive and clear, missing a few elements 29 = Word economy was great, crushed the opponent, very persuasive, great/interesting argumentation, etc. 30 = You made me laugh and want to vote for you whether or not you were winning the flow throughout the round.