Jesse Love Paradigm

Last changed 12/10 1:57A EDT

Michigan Debater

Email me with questions (jlovejr@umich.edu) or ask me before the round

Do it and I'll judge it, it's your world.

Started debate as a novice in college reading only policy args and now read almost exclusively K args- I like to hear creative and innovative takes on both sides.

Theory: Can be very dope if both sides are making in-depth analysis. Can be boring if it's just shallow blips about infinite prep time.

Defaults:

2 Condo is cool

Perf Con can be a voter but is probably better utilized to bolster other arguments You're making

50 state fiat is a toss up, lean slightly neg

Neg gets international fiat if the aff uses International fiat for some reason otherwise probably a no go for me

I default to squo is always an option so I'll judge kick CPs and Alts if I think you link to whatever DA you're going for if that means doing nothing is still better than doing the aff. However, if you don't say that in the 2NR I am willing to stick you with it if the 2AR makes some convincing args as to why I should.

Idc about what happened before the round unless I witnessed it. I'm a judge, not a referee. Its a debate, not just random arguing

T: What's "reasonable" is a matter of winning why your aff/interp is or should be a predictable way of reading the topic. So I guess to me T is implicitly an argument that ask me to choose whose interp is most reasonable to debate over. I think aff teams spending time explaining why they should win even if you don't win your interp is necessary but not always sufficient defense. Procedural fairness can be an impact but my default frame is potential abuse isn't a voter so keep that in mind when impacting out why the violation matters. 2NR/2AR impact calc is a big part of my decision but just as important is the I/L level. Don't just tell me topic education matters/is good tell me why your interp leads to the best form of topic education and why their interp distorts that.

Cp: Consult CPs and Process CPs are meh. Good Adv and UQ CPs are dope. Pics can be good pending debate. Pics with no solvency advocate are probably sus though. Generally err on the side of having an advocate for your CPs. Don't have strong feelings either way about kicking planks.

DA: I'm not just gonna spot you a link and just saying "no link because it's not about our specific plan" or whatever isn't good enough without telling me why that difference matters. Affs should make presses on the I/L level because a lot of DAs fall apart there. DA turns case work is important. Impact framing in the last two rebuttals is useful in helping me distinguish what scenario I should prioritize solving.

Case: Important in almost every debate on both sides imo. Use your 1AC as a weapon on every flow. Use offense and defense on other flows to push back against the aff. I'm down to vote on presumption if the aff doesn't meet the burden of altering the squo. Impact turns are dope. CO2 good is meh. War good? Could be I guess.

Policy V K: Down with all Ks, but if you don't know the theory it's not gonna go well for you. Plan in a vacuum is meh but you should answer it. Link debating is super important. If the links are to the squo, how does that still implicate the aff? ROJ/ROB args are just impact framing arguments so explain what that means in terms of how I should view the debate during my decision. Wether Alt solvency matters or not is up for debate but I do believe its a good place to sit for either side. I think aff teams that defend their reps as good contingent views of whatever their scenario is tend to do better versus the K instead of trying to morph the 1AC to solve for stuff that's outside its scope. Perm should tell me what it would look like to do that particular combination of the aff and the K. Why do the links not apply to the perm? Otherwise I tend to be persuaded that if the Alt is to reject the aff then the perm that includes the aff still links. The 2AR doesn't always have to go for the perm to win, sometimes it hurts the ethos of some of your other offense. When you extend the K in the block you should us the LBL as your friend. It makes it easier to see when a 1AR argument is new and it tends to makes the aff team have to collapse more. Both sides should react to how the other team articulates the nuisances of their particular arguments instead of just responding to the version of the arg you know.

K v FW: I think about these debates as the love child of t and theory in many aspects. I think teams are most successful when they can explain why whatever they think debate should be for can both sustain robust debates and produce some kind of benefit for the topic or as a frame more generally. Therefore, I'm more interested in competitive equity type arguments as opposed to fairness as an intrinsic good type arguments. I feel that using competitive equity instead fairness allows you to circumvent a lot of the affs "but what is fairness *mix drop*" type args. Equity suggests a correction for structural unfairness. So spend time unpacking why your model is the most can include the aff in a manner that allows both sides to participate in a equitable way. Limits, ground and clash seem to best be served as I/L to impacts. I.e. limits seems to be important to preround and pre tournament prep. Why is preserving that something that's important to sustaining robust debates? Tvas are best when they're actually topical and use the language of the aff. I think state good/bad type args can be important here. I'm not convinced by "they follow speech time rules" type arguments because most teams aren't arguing that they should be able to break the rules. Rather, it's usually an argument that fw is a norm imposed as a rule and that's bad for whatever reason. I would try to leave time to extend your best argument or two on case in the 2NR- pushes back against 2AR grandstanding and is a pretty good ethos moment to show you were trying to engage with the aff. I will lean neg on fw comes first but I think if that's not a well impacted out argument in the 2NR and you don't go to case you may be leaving more doors open than you want to. RT: Using the 1AC as a weapon. Aff teams that can explain why they have a c/I that can solve both sides offense tend to be in a better spot but I'm open to hear why that might not matter. I usually think you should have a clear link to the topic in some way otherwise I'm more inclined to believe you're just trying to rig the game in your favor. Defense only in the 2AR on fw can be a winner to me if you win a reason I should evaluate the affs impacts first so winning aff impacts and solvency are at least as important as your turns on fw. Solvency in these debates can look like a bunch of different things but it is important to tease out how you do those things and for the neg why they don't do those things/debate isn't key. Presumption/ballot pushes alone can be a winning 2NR but you gotta be putting some good analysis here. Using their evidence to explain why they don't solve is a smart move. You don't have to necessarily recut it but you should explain why they aren't what their authors are describing because a lot of k affs aren't. I believe presumption can flow aff easier in these debates than other rounds but I default to the squo being a neg ballot unless instructed otherwise. So if you do wanna go for presumption you may wanna tell me what that actually means. Is the squo>aff b/c of a L/T? Is it b/c the aff doesn't meet the burden of changing the squo? Is it because my ballot can't solve or isn't needed to solve the aff? Idk. Tell me please. My ballot is only ever a referendum on who I think won the round. How I should evaluate the arguments that make me pick a winner or loser are most useful in helping me back my decision.

K v K: These debates can be sweet af or just random posturing on both sides. No perm in method debates only makes sense if you're actually winning a link. Why is it fair to say I should hold K affs to a different standard for perms than I would a policy aff? However, if you do win a link and an alt/reason you don't need one then no perms makes way more sense because then the aff is probably doing some shifty stuff that troubles other portions of the debate as well. External impact to the K is less important in these debates to me because winning a link usually means you control the I/L to the affs impacts but having one is a good tiebreaker. I/L debating is very important to helping frame what theory is preferable in my decision making.

Misc: Truth=Tech

There can be 0% risk of a link if you don't generate a sufficient amount of UQ for it. So I tend to believe UQ controls the direction of the link not the other way around.

Don't let your competitive intensity cross the line to being problematic.

CX is important. Get what you need and use it. Make sure I see the vision of the questions at some point in the debate.

I really do love to hear arguments that expand my view and understanding of debate and the world so I'm perfect to try your funky args out on and I'll try my best to give you quality feedback!

Have fun and try not to be libidinal

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 SRR R8 Walter Payton Maggie Rivera & Zachary Vanderslice Edgemont Amar Sandhu & Rohan Shah Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 SRR R3 Maine East Parth Shah & Nicole Sobski Niles West Dulguun Bat-erdene & Ephraim Bennett Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 JRR R3 North Broward Prep Dev Gopal & Jay Gopal Lexington Matthew Berhe & William Yang Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/30/2019 SRR R2 Univ Of Chicago Lab Alexis Chia & Annette Kim North Broward Prep Anna Farronay & Sebastian Rabbini Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL Semis HFBRMS BaMe HFBRMS KP Aff Aff on a 3-0
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL Octos FFPSVZ NG HFBRMS KP Neg Neg on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL Double HFBRMS BaMe FFPSVZ CW Neg Aff on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R4 Classic HF RK FFPSVZ TK Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R4 HMMK PP K-Lab BB Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R3 Classic RW LK HMMK SW Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R3 K-Lab MT K-Lab DA Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R2 Classic RW LL Classic EGW ML Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R2 Classic HF TW Classic ABZ DP Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R1 Classic RW ST KLab DM Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/30/2019 POL R1 HJLPPW KL CCMWP PP Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Octos Glenbrook North KP Chattahoochee JN Neg Aff on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX Double Pine Crest Prep CD Woodlands Independent MR Neg Neg on a 3-0
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R4 New Trier HM Niles West CM Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R3 Glenbrook North JR Little Rock Central RS Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R2 Westminster BK Woodlands Independent MR Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/24/2018 VCX R1 New Trier WM Johns Creek DS Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R4 Niles North IL FFGSV GL Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R3 Classic KAZ ChCh Westminster DR Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R2 Classic KAZ BP CPPWW-MMMR KY Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 7/31/2018 POL R1 MMMR KS Wayzata HR Neg
Michigan District Tournament 1/20/2018 PF R5 Cranbrook RL Dexter ER Aff Aff on a 3-0
Michigan District Tournament 1/20/2018 CX R2 Detroit Loyola SW Detroit Loyola BM Aff
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 11/1/2017 VCX R1 Stevens Point Area Senior High (SPASH) SV Jones CP DT Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL B-S McCaffrey/Zuckerman KP Oddo/Walrath MM Neg Neg on a 3-0
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL Octos FFRSV PS HJPPV HR Neg Aff on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL Double HJPPV HR BFHHR GrKr Aff Aff on a 3-0
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R5 AFKKMM RZ Munday/Tallungan OS Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R4 BCPPR PU BFHHR BrDo Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R3 AFKKMM FM HJPPV AL Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R3 HJPPV KS Munday/Tallungan GP Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R2 HJPPV DT FFRSV LW Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R1 McCaffrey/Zuckerman WW FFRSV JJ Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX R2 Traverse City Central FM Montgomery Bell RK Neg
University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament 10/26/2016 VCX R1 Glenbrook North JL Traverse City Central CG Aff
Michigan Summer Institute 8/4/2015 POL Oct MAGS CR MAGS ST Neg Neg on a 3-0
Michigan Summer Institute 8/4/2015 POL R4 MAGS IJ ZP Alexis-Mark Aff
Michigan Summer Institute 8/4/2015 POL R2 HJPV MJ CFFP BN Aff
Michigan Summer Institute 8/4/2015 POL R1 GHJMP JH KM WiWi Aff