Jack Rankin Paradigm

Last changed 11/5 8:15A CDT

I am a fourth year debater at MBA. I have debated in plenty of rounds on the Immigration topic, so I am familiar with the topic.

Below is some useful information that I know I would look for when checking a judge's philosophy, but I try to judge mainly off the flow and the debating that occurs in round. That being said, good evidence helps and is important.

Put me on the email chain: jack.rankin19@montgomerybell.edu

T/FW

Fairness is an impact. Defending the resolution is always a good idea in front of me. Beating the AFF's case and theories about the world always helps. It isn't impossible to beat framework with me in the back because I'll judge these debates off the flow. A couple of smart and logical arguments from either side can change these debates.

Topicality

I'm down for whatever technical T debate you want. But AFF teams under-utilize substantive crowd-out as offense and reasonability.

Theory

Condo is generally good, but I am down for a technical theoretical debate. Most types of CP theory arguments are dumb, but again, you have to win the flow.

Framing

The AFF has to disprove the internal links to disads before probability framing makes sense. 1% risk of racism is an illogical argument. Solvency deficits on CPs need to be impacted out to outweigh the NEG's offense. If the CP solves the whole AFF, most framing arguments don't make sense.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R6 USN CL Woodward TP Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R4 Woodward SS Isidore Newman EP Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R2 Marist HM Woodward FC Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R1 USN CW Alpharetta HS GN Neg