Howell,+Jacob

__**Experience:**__ 4 years Hillcrest High School, 1 semester University of Kansas, judged ~10 rounds on this years topic. Nate Cohn gave me a stuffed animal once.

Hey! I'm Jake and I really like judging debate. Do what you consider most strategic and I will evaluate it the best I can with whatever tools you give me. So that means impacts need to be contextualized against other impacts if there are multiple frameworks in the round. But really just do your best and what you think is the best thing to do and I will judge it, it's not my job to tell you what to do or what to take away from this lovely activity.

__**A couple things...**__ Please keep your own time. I'm just so bad at it it'll be better for everyone

I always call for cards, if just to educate myself on the topic more, but I //usually// try not to base my decision on what I read after round, but more how the card itself is used and debated in round. Deep evidence debates are fun and interesting I think.

Sassiness is fine, and this probably goes without saying (but again, I judge a lot of regional debate) if there's anything deliberately sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist etc. anything that would require a trigger warning or would indicate a deliberate marginalization of a group of people in in-round discourse, I will be very cross with you. I haven't dropped anyone wholesale for this before, and I would prefer not to have to do that.

Prep ends when the jump drive leaves the computer. I will keep timing even if you say you're just saving it. Learn the macros if it takes you forever to save. I think it's ctrl + alt + S or something on PCs.

__**Some specific stuff...**__ Kritiks/critical arguments: totally fine and cool and i love them mostly. I have a pretty low threshold for voting for kritiks, but I think an unmitigated case generally outweighs. (assuming the K doesn't, you know, give me a theoretical reason to reject the aff wholesale)

Framework: I evaluate framework pretty much the same way i do everything else. Impacts, or in this case, disads. But I understand that frameworks can encompass others and certain frameworks can nullify impacts, so I don't view every framework as evenly matched (ex: If an affirmative reads a policy option only framework against a K neg, I think the aff's framework is at a disadvantage b/c the negative probably is engaging a method question or something while the aff isn't)

Case: I only bring this up because I think intense case debate is awesome. Lots of the regional debates I judge tend to leave case out of the 1NC entirely (which makes me sad), it probably goes without saying, but please don't do that. Unless you want to, I'm not your boss. It's just in my opinion a bad way to introduce the negative position(s).

T: Also love it. I tend to view T as a disad unless told otherwise. I'm not afraid to vote aff on reasonability. I'm not afraid of anything.

CP: These are cool. I like conditionality, unless the theory debate is really good and makes me think conditionality is bad. I don't have a pre'dispo'sition. I probably wouldn't vote on a floating pic if there's some theory on it, but I consider them legitimate if uncontested, just shady.

DA's: these can be voting issues too. I don't have a whole lot new to say here.