Jordan,+Shunta

Name = Shunta Jordan Affiliation = Pace Academy School Strikes = Pace Academy


 * Note to all: There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.**

I have thought long and hard about my judge philosophy over the past few years and as a result, I have made some substantial changes regarding arguments that I am willing to listen to. For years, I have only preferred to judge straight-up policy debates with very little interest in critical or performance-style debates. Given that I am an educator and the evolution of our activity calls for more argument-diverse participants, I have grown more willing to change my view in response to our activity.
 * __Updated Judge Philosophy for 2013-14 season__**

Beginning this season, I will listen to all arguments assuming that they are not offensive or demeaning to others in our activity. This does not mean I will understand them all nor does it mean I will auto-vote for you because you are the non-policy debate team in the room. It does mean that as a coach and educator of debaters who seek knowledge about and through an array of styles and arguments, I am willing to step out of my comfort zone to learn more and help my debaters function in the changing world of debate.

__**Specifics**__ 1. Don't assume what motivates you to debate is the same thing(s) that motivate me to judge. These things don't have to be the same for me to vote for you and just because some things might appear to be the same doesn't make them avenues or reasons that I should vote for you in a particular debate.

2. The Aff should probably read a plan and it should probably be topical.

3. I probably lean neg when it comes to framework and most other theoretical issues.

4. Clipping is cheating and you will lose if you do it in front of me...no further discussion needed.

5. Jumping counts as prep time.

6. Everyone should flow. You cannot earn higher than 27 speaks in front of me if you don't flow.

__**LD Specific**__ I don't judge as many LD rounds as I do policy rounds, but I try to donate rounds in LD when I can. So here are some of my specific preferences when judging LD debates:

1. Skepticism arguments are not winners in front of me. In fact, I'd refrained completely from making them in front of me.

2. Any argument that is racist, sexist, homophobic or any other form of offensive will not be tolerated when I'm in the back of the room.

3. RVIs are dumb and pretty much a waste of time.

4. If your strat is to read and go for bad theory arguments, I should probably be a strike for you.

5. I expect for you to engage your opponent rather than attempting to evade or spike out of arguments.