Farenhem,+Jordan

What's up debaters, it's Jordan here. Quick intro, I debated for four years at Pembroke Pines Charter High School in South Florida and graduated in 2017. I earned five career bids, and I debated just about every type of debate (with the exception of performance and non-T affs), so feel free to run whatever you are feeling in front of me. I'll be spending the next few years at Yale (because I, unlike TJ Foley, have a good taste in college).


 * Summary:** Run whatever you want (with the exception of being blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) and tell me how I should be voting. I spent my sophomore year LARPing, junior year almost only running Ks, and senior year I read tricks and Ks, so I have decent experience with most areas of debate. I am probably best at evaluating Ks and theory, but still run whatever you want. I personally was pretty anti-disclosure as a debater, but that being said I will still evaluate disclosure theory although I will be quite receptive to responses to it (especially if you're a big school debater reading it against someone from a small school). That being said, if an argument is won I will vote on it.

__Now some specifics:__
 * K's:** As a debater, I read my share of discourse Ks, and really enjoyed colonialism Ks and Edelman. I've read a lot of the stock K literature and should be able to understand what your argument is relatively easy. In regards to "high theory," If you read high theory, please don't expect me to fully understand it; I will try my best to understand things, but I might just try find the easiest place to evaluate if things get too messy. I think K's need more of an alt than simply "reject the other debater" and will probably give your K more credence if there is some actual solvency.

UPDATE AT YALE: If you read "affirming/negating is harder" please tell me what the impact of this is! I can't stand people reading these big blocks and then I have no idea if that means I err one way on theory, compeltely just vote for one side or what, and I dont want to do that weighing.
 * Theory/T:** Read whatever interps your heart desires as long as the arguments are warranted. I read plenty of "frivolous" theory as a debater and will evaluate anything you care to read. I don't think I have ever had a theory round come down reasonability and think competing interps are way easier to debate and resolve, but if you go for reasonability just make it clear what the brightline for abuse is. I don't think AC interps/spikes need to be extended as full shells in the 1AR, just extend the interp and give me like one justification from the AC for it if it is completely conceded and then tell me if it is drop the debater or arg.


 * Framework:** I was not much of a framework debater during my debate career, but just explain the arguments to me and weigh your framework. I think it is possible to leverage framework and substantive arguments against theory, ROBs, and stuff like that and enjoy those types of strategic interactions.


 * Tricks:** Have at it, run what you like. If your aff is going to be dozens of tiny blips just slow down a tad between them so I can try flow to the best of my ability.


 * LARP:** Didn't do much of this debate, but as long as you weigh clearly I imagine I'll be able to evaluate it just fine.

As far as I am aware, you are a single person, calling yourself "we" makes me want to smash my head into my desk. Sit or stand, whatever you like. I'm probably not going to pay much attention in CX or prep time, so if something relevant to the flow happens (for example CX checking an interp or crossing something off the flow) please make sure I am paying attention. Idk how I assign speaks, just be good and you'll probably be happy with your speaks.
 * Random Stuff:**