Jones,+Jeff

Jeff Jones Marquette (MO) HS

Background: I competed in four years of high school policy at Belleville West High School in southern IL, which probably won't mean much to you. I also competed in three years of NPDA/NPTE style parliamentary debate at McKendree University and Washburn University. At this point in my career, I think it's safe to assume that the number of rounds I have both debated and judged are too high for me to count, so suffice it to say I have extensive experience in adjudicating every style of high school debate you can imagine. However, the caveat here is that Lincoln Douglas is the event I feel least comfortable in, so know that going in.

Performance Preferences: I've yet to hear a high school LD round that was too fast for me to flow. Speed is not an issue - clarity is. I understand that when you get going early in a speech (or early in the morning) things will tend to be less clear than later in the speech/day, so I will try to be a little forgiving. However, given the intricate setups of many LD cases that occur early in the speech, it would perhaps be best to slow down just a little if you think your clarity is in question. I will try to make that as explicit as possible by yelling "clear" until you get clear, but again, I find myself giving some leeway where perhaps I shouldn't. Other than that, the other aspects of your performance don't concern me. Speak sitting down, lying down, standing on your head, in a suit, a t-shirt or a parka for all I care, as long as you can be understood.

Argumentative Preferences: As I stated above, high school LD is not an event I've personally competed in nor one whose national circuit I follow particularly closely. I'm more than confident in my ability to judge a debate based on the arguments presented, but some of the "newer" innovations in LD may take a little extra explaining for me. I will hold LDers running procedurals to the same burden I hold policy debaters; that is, a procedural needs to contain an interpretaton, a violation and reasons to prefer, and should be evaluated in the context of competing interpretations (yes, this means that if some reads a procedural against you, you NEED a counter interpretation). Generally speaking, I will default to weighing the value frameworks to make my decision, oftentimes by examining whether one value would encompass the other or by measuring the efficacy of the criteria as debated in round. I have no qualms about rounds where one or both debaters do not read a value or criterion, but in those cases again a little more clarity is appreciated. Critical debate does not shock or offend me, but in my retirement I am not nearly as up to date on the literature as I once was. Overviews are your friends. Other than that, if you have any questions, you should always feel free to e-mail me (jonesDOTjeffreyDOTmATgmailDOTcom). Happy debating!