Davis,+Jake


 * Debated at Johns Creek High School for 4 years and **** UGA for 1 year. **


 * Short version: go line by line, be respectful and go for what you're most comfortable with. **


 * Long version: **
 * General: **
 * Although I will give my argument preferences below, please don't take these so far to the point where it will restrict what you think are good arguments, I like it best when debaters are confident on what they can win on regardless of what judge is in the back of the room. **


 * Argument Specifics: **


 * Disadvantages: Always enjoyable debates to watch. Turns case analysis is truly underutilized with these. The more in depth analysis the better. Case specificity is always a plus too. Presumption tends to go neg when it's a SQ vs. case debate. It goes aff when it's a CP/DA debate unless told otherwise. **


 * Kritiks: just like disads, overview analysis is truly underutilized, in order to win this type of argument in front of me, there needs to be well enough impact work and how those impacts interact and link to the aff, if those impacts happen to operate within a different framework than the aff, then you will need to explain why that type of framework is best. However, for both the aff and the neg, I don’t think winning framework on the neg means the entire aff offense just magically goes away and I don’t think the aff winning it means I kick the alt for them. Additionally, I mostly preferred mainstream kritiks (cap, security, biopower) when debating. If you decide to go for a pretty squirrely K, you really to know the story behind it yourself before you make the attempt to sell it in front of me. **


 * Counterplans: Always enjoyable debates to judge as well. Make sure the solvency advocate is specific to what the counterplan actually does and make link comparisons with the net benefit to show what is the brightline for the uniqueness for the link to be in the world of the CP vs the plan. However for cheating counterplans that completely result in the aff with the only difference being one minor modification, I tend to lean aff on most of these theory debates and perm debates, if the aff makes these theoretical objections, make sure to answer them argument by argument instead of reading your generic go to 2nc theory block and try to overwhelm them with 35 arguments on why process CPs are good, making the flow messier to make them drop more arguments isn’t very strategic when you’re messing up my flow as well, this applies to condo as well. **


 * Topicality: Negatives need to explain what the world of the interpretation is and how not rejecting the aff results in all their standards claims. In addition to DA and K debates, impact calculus is underutilized here as well as most theory debates, make sure you have offense and defense to respond to their claims and how your impact interacts with theirs. I tend to lean more tech with T debates as I've been debating more. I'm willing to drop a pretty core-of-the-topic aff if the neg outtechs the aff. I am also willing to pick up a squirrely aff when the aff can outtech as well. **


 * Kritikal affirmatives: I read one myself my junior year. However, it was only for about half my aff debates while for my entire freshman and sophomore years, I was reading nothing but policy affs and going for framework against these types of affs. So, I can understand both sides when it comes to these debates. Framework needs to be debated like T, not like it’s a CP or DA, which means if the aff makes arguments about how framework justifies genocide, racism or any other ism, I tend to lean on the argument that it’s rather a T claim than a CP do the aff with the USFG as the actor. Since I view it as a T debate, if you have questions over how I view framework look above on the topicality debate. **


 * Theory: 1 conditional counterplan and 1 conditional Kritik (or less than that) are usually good with me, but if the aff truly wins that there is a better and less abusive world, I am willing to vote on it. Anything more, I will tend to lean aff, but if they can do a good job defending that is best, then I won’t reject it. Dispo debates tend to not go anywhere, the aff needs to stick the neg on what that truly means in the context of the round if they really want to make it a voter. Pre-round condo isn’t real. **


 * In round specifics: **


 * Paperless: I won’t take prep for flashing, but if it’s obvious you’re prepping when your partner/the other team is flashing, I’ll warn you to stop, if you keep doing it, I’ll run the timer. For computers crashing, this seems to be inevitable with the rise of paperless and it’s already happened to me twice, so I feel your pain, if it happens within your speech, you should first ask your partner if they have the speech up and then read off of that while your partner fixes your problem- if it happens before your speech but you already flashed, you should do the same as well, however, if you are in both scenarios and your partner doesn’t have the speech, 1. shame on you for not giving it to your partner, 2. you should ask if the other team is willing to lend their laptops or 3. I’ll stop the timer and see if you can fix your laptop within a reasonable time. Now, the worst scenario for a computer accident to happen is when you haven’t flashed anything/saved the speech at all and it crashes while you’re prepping or right after you finish prepping, in that case, just let me know that it happened and I’ll give you half the prep you took to get the speech doc together to paste your blocks, during this time, the other team shouldn’t prep and you and your partner can’t write on your flows or type new arguments into the speech doc, this time is exclusively for pasting the blocks, if it depleted before you are done, then I will resume the timer for what prep you had left off. **


 * Speaking: Speak clear, loud and fast. Clarity is the highest priority above all of those above, if you have to sacrifice your clarity for speed, then don’t. I’ll try my best to tell you if I think you should be clearer. Be audible, but don’t make me deaf by shouting at the top of your lungs in the beginning of the speech. **


 * In round behavior: Don’t be mean to the other team, debate was made to be fun for both sides, act like it is, otherwise I’ll take off some speaks. **


 * Speaker Points: This usually varies between round and what scenario of the round I have to be in, but generally high 27 is the average I give, less than that means you probably didn’t flow, didn’t respect the other team, or didn’t show me what you could do. More than that means you flowed, answered their arguments, made good arguments, respected the other team and spoke good. **