Last changed on
Fri September 22, 2023 at 12:12 PM CDT
Im Jaden. I'm a student @ UT l - I have been debating since 6th grade in both LD and policy. If you'd like to use an email chain / share speech docs, please use jadenb0622@gmail.com
I think in an ideal world, the affirmative should defend a meaningful change from the status quo, and the negative should prove why the affirmative is a bad idea.
I have debated and judged most args in LD so do you what you would like. Read Below.
That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and thoroughly enjoy 6 minutes of topicality or framework 2nrs[like, T-framework against k affs, not kant]ifdelivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.
I am a bad judge for denser "phil" debates- i do not think about analytic philosophy/tricks outside of debate tournaments, soI need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates.
I think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly -it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable),and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction.this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each.If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety.similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.
I will evaluate Disclosure Theory if the violation is apparent However, that comes with the burden to prove it.
- LARP
- CP/DA
- Theory
- T
- K
- Tricks
- Take the aforementioned list lightly safe for tricks, because I will play a trick on you and not evaluate it.
Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:
-
Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
-
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, andmy brain simply cannot process/flow it at high speeds.
+.1 speaks for a Carti reference
Please do not be mean or say something offensive. I can tank speaks for the former and drop you for the latter. Racism = bad
Have fun fr! I will try to adapt to the debate you want to have.
Thanks,
Jaden