Justice,+Jacob

Judge's Name: Justice, Jacob High School Graduation Date: 2009 Judge's e-mail: eb3271@wayne.edu Experience: - Coach a team - High School debater - College debater - Frequently Judge Rounds Judged this topic: 40+ Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 5 Fast Quantity of Arguments: 3 A moderate number Topicality: 3 Moderately Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 1 acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: ---Any argument that contains a claim, data (this doesn't mean carded), warrant and implication is fair game for my ballot.

---Context is important. Context can determine if the DA links, the K alt is competitive, conditionality is justified, and everything in between.

---Tech creates "truth". What is "truth" is contingent on arguments made (and won).

I judge a lot of different arguments. I don't care if your preferences include the politics disad, Cap K, afro-pessimism, anthro, or anything (read: most things... see below) in between. You should have a stasis point, and you should allow your advocacy to be tested (i.e. defend your aff), but it makes little difference to me if that stasis point involves a plan, advocacy statement, performance, etc. All debate is performance.

Does that mean I will never vote on framework? Of course not. I tend to view framework as a "method critique" and an opportunity cost, and will obviously vote on it if USFG engagement is the superior method.

Does that mean I will always vote on framework? Of course not. The team who controls "topic engagement solves / doesn't solve now" usually has a leg up in winning my ballot

There is one very important caveat to the above. I have an extremely low tolerance for pedagogically bankrupt arguments in high school debate rounds. Arguments like "death good", "time cube", "Ashtar", Gregorian Calender bad", "Racism/sexism/homophobia good", or "Vote for us because we lost" (note: this is by no means an exhaustive list, and If you are unsure if your argument should be included on this list... it probably should) will likely result in a loss. I say "likely will result in a loss" because I'll at least hold the other team to a burden of saying something I can work with in order to vote for them, but trust me, I can be pretty creative, and if your goal is to win, I wouldn't risk it.

And just to get this out of the way, you would be absolutely correct to point out "pedagogically bankrupt" is subjective. "After all," you may say, "what makes the politics DA + agent CP strategy fine, but 'death good' not?" I would simply say to you "if my 'draconian standards' are too fascist for your care free spirit, I am a good candidate for a strike." I could care less about what students, or the coaches who allow such nonsense to happen, think about my interventionist attitude toward a subjective list of ignorant arguments. I get it's paternalistic, and I'm okay with that. I'll adapt to you in every way, I'll let you do you, except when you are making the debate space unsafe / void of any recognizable pedagogical benefits.

Ethics Statement: Agree