Johnson,+Jessica

Debated 4 years in high school for Lyons, KS, 4 years of NDT/CEDA policy debate for Missouri State University, coached 1 year of NDT/CEDA policy debate for Missouri State University. Currently am assisting T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, VA.

Overall: I think that debate is a game, the greatest game ever in fact, and room for clash is very important. I put more emphasis on arguments that are better explained, and will not automatically vote on a cheap shot unless they are fully explained. I make a lot of decisions based upon impact comparisons of specificity of evidence, probability, timeframe or magnitude. I will read evidence if it is contested and the quality of evidence may play a role in my decision because I believe the research aspect of debate is very important and should be rewarded. That said, I do also appreciate teams that are able to be creative with evidence and control how it is interpreted through CX and their speeches. If you have really good evidence that you want me to read after the round, use its name in your last rebuttals so I can easily call for it. Speed is not an issue unless I can't understand you, and I prefer policy to performance.

DAs: If your evidence is terrible, it probably undercuts the probability of the DA so spend more time explaining it, perhaps with historical and other examples. Even if the evidence is terrible, I think Affs need to find a way to generate offense or mitigate and outweigh.

CPs: I really like CPs and tend to reject the argument, not the team on theory debates. That said, I think that CPs in general are becoming increasingly abusive so a significant time investment by the Aff could be rewarded on counterplans like delay and consult. If you do go for CP theory, don't just repeat your blocks and make more indepth arguments that actually answer things the other team says.

Kritiks: I ran a lot of generic K’s so may not be as familiar with the literature for topic specific ones. Specific links are important and I think permutations (just tests of the competition) spun right can be very powerful. Floating pics are questionable and other alterantive theory arguments are useful. I happily listen to framework although please explain the implications of these versus the K. Please, please, please do not attempt to be as vague as possible with the alternative and hope to win. A critical Aff relating to the topic will always be better off than one that does not.

Topicality: Affs should generally be topical. I don’t particularly enjoy topicality debates because they get blippy but am pretty sure that any case can be proven untopical. Case/argument examples on both sides really help add depth to the argument.

Spec’s: I don’t mind them but plan to invest a lot of time in these arguments if you want to win my ballot unless the other team drops something important.