Josh Jacobs Paradigm

Last changed 11/14 2:11P EDT

Updated for Yale (LD) of 2018

I debated for Pine Crest for 6 years, and am attending Northwestern University. I've had a lot of experience as a debater, so honestly, do whatever it is you do best. I did policy debate and qualified to the TOC reading primarily affs with extinction impacts and cp/da or topicality on the negative. That being said, I've had exposure to many arguments.

TLDR: Do what you want, but be wary of framework and tricks without a well-warranted explanation of why you have won the debate.

General outlook:

Tech over truth, but truth does matter. I prefer arguments that have some grain of truth in them, but in close debates, I will always default to technical concessions. You should make sure you thoroughly explain the argument to me and how it impacts the way I should view the round.

Evidence comparison is essential - comparing warrants, author qualifications, and dates can decide which way I'm leaning on certain parts of the debate. Teams that have the better evidence but do less work doing evidence comparison will find themselves in a worse spot than the team that is doing evidence comparison. Evidence quality is important, but debating that evidence and comparing it to the other team's evidence is just as important.

However, a well-thought out analytic will beat a bad piece of evidence every time. Some of my favorite debates are the ones that occur over analytics because it shows that the debaters have thought about the entirety of the debate before the round.

Please, please, please do not steal prep. This was one of my biggest pet peeves my senior year of debate because so many teams did it. If I catch you stealing prep, I will deduct .1 speaker points instantly. Please don't cheat; if I catch you clipping I will give you zero speaks and an automatic loss.

Most important: I will do my best as an objective judge to listen to anything you read and evaluate it in as fair of a manner as I possibly can. I won't vote on any offensive arguments. We're all in the same room for 1 hour so please respect me, respect your opponents, and respect yourselves. We've all made a commitment to being here, and I will do my best to respect you.

Important note: I hate when people are rude and condescending in cross-examination. Is it really that hard to be cordial?

I will gladly accept any questions after I give my decision and will be happy to go more in depth on how I decided the debate.

Specific arguments:

Policy Arguments: I was a policy debater in high school, so I'm very familiar and comfortable with these types of arguments. My favorite rounds to judge are the ones where each debater clearly explains how their arguments interact with each other with end-of-round vision. I love a "larp" aff with logical internal link chains and well-warranted solvency. On the negative, there's few things I love more than a strategic counterplan with (ideally) a net-benefit that has a good link to the affirmative.

Topicality (not like T-FW or T-Implementation, but stuff like T with regards to specific words in the resolution): This was my favorite argument senior year. I love a good topicality debate in which competing visions of the topic are examined rigorously and compared. If both sides read definitions, you should probably be doing evidence comparison.

Critiques: Do it if you're good at it. I love a good critique debate, but hopefully your link is not a generic state bad link (not saying I won't vote on this, but it is easy to beat and makes the round boring for me). Ideally, you have a specific link to the affirmative and your view of the world is well-warranted and explained well in the 2NR. Although I wasn't particularly critical, I have encountered a wide range of critical arguments and am most familiar with Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, Security, etc.

K Affs: Do it if you're good at it. I have no weird preferences here, but I would prefer it if you aren't super shifty in the debate and/or are sketchy in 1AC cross-x.

Side note to K debaters: please do line-by-line and explain all of your arguments and how they interact with your opponent's arguments.

T vs non-T affs: This was my favorite strategy against affirmatives that were not topical (and my favorite argument too in general). That being said, I am very willing to vote up the non-T aff. Advice to both sides:

- Neg going for T against a non-T aff: impact out topicality and explain why it comes before the aff, solves the aff, or ideally both. Fairness is an impact if it's explained. Make sure to answer their impact turns to topicality very well. You should probably have case defense on the relevant parts of the aff that they are leveraging against topicality.

- Non-T aff beating T: You almost definitely should not meet them in the middle; instead, have offense. Explain why your aff takes out T/is a pre-requisite to T/impact turns T/whatever.

Theory: While theory was not a big deal in policy debate, I love topicality so I presume that I'll also enjoy a high-level theory debate. I'm willing to vote on whatever shell you read, but the more frivolous the shell, the more I'll be persuaded by reasonability or drop the argument.

Framework/philosophy: Yeah, this wasn't a thing in policy. I don't have any biases, and I will be as objective as possible. If you want to go for this, write my RFD for me in your final speech. By that, I mean seriously explain why you have won the debate.

Tricks: I am willing to vote on them. I will be seriously annoyed if I have to vote on the fact that spike #20 of your 4-minute underview was dropped, but if I have to vote on this, so be it. If you are reading tricks and plan on going for them, actually explain why you have won the debate. Every argument needs a claim and a warrant. Also, I have heard that some kids will be annoying during cross-examination and pretend like they don't know certain LD debate terms. Don't do this in front of me.

- Note about this: one of my favorite quotes is: "If you can't beat the argument that rocks are people and we should take their feelings into consideration, then you don't deserve to win the debate." I will apply this outlook to tricks; I might think your argument is stupid, but I will be objective as possible and hope your opponent is competent enough to point out the stupidity in your arguments.

Defaults:

- Truth-testing, although in all honestly, I probably view a debate in terms of comparative worlds and if you're actually having a truth-testing/comparative worlds ROB debate, you'll have to spend a little time explaining your view of debate

- No RVIs

- Competing interpretations

- Drop the argument

Random stuff that you should find relevant:

- Please never utter the words "Not my Baudrillard!"

- Please do not be incompetent with technology

- Please do not waste 5 minutes asking the other team multiple times what they did and did not read. Flowing is pretty cool.

- Please do not say "They have conceded..." 30 times in your final speech unless they surprisingly did concede all 30 of the things you are saying.

- Please don't try to be funny if you aren't funny

Speaker points: High speaker points will be awarded to debaters who demonstrate strategic vision and make persuasive arguments. Bonus points if you sound persuasive and establish ethos, but I won't penalize you if you aren't a good speaker. Extra bonus points if you make fun of my brother, Jason.

My email is joshjacobs951@gmail.com . Please feel free to email me with any questions!

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD Sextos Immaculate Heart MC Harrison AZ Neg Neg on a 3-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R7 Harker AD North Allegheny Sr AD Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R7 Lakeville North ST Episcopal School of Dallas ZH Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R6 Immaculate Heart LM Appleton East SM Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R6 Harker SS Newsome AG Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R5 American Heritage Plantation BG Marlborough GN Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R4 Meadows KS Lake Highland Prep AM Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R4 Harvard-Westlake AD Scarsdale WC Aff
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD Octas Millburn AJ Dallastown NK Aff Aff on a 2-1
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD Trips Loyola AO Dallastown NK Neg Neg on a 2-1
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R6 Montville AS Lexington SG Neg
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R6 Thomas Jefferson HSST PR NSU MF Aff
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R5 Lexington PS Scarsdale BY Aff
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R4 Lake Highland Prep JD Princeton VC Aff
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R4 Dallastown NK Niskayuna SR Aff
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R3 Lexington CL Syosset RD Neg
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R3 Millburn AW Achievement First Brooklyn AP Aff
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R2 Pembroke Pines Charter MC Scarsdale FH Neg
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R2 Lexington JC Bronx HS Of Science HW Aff
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R1 Pembroke Pines Charter MO Hunter MN Neg
Yale Invitational 9/14/2018 VLD R1 Acton-Boxborough ML Trinity Prep DF Aff