Currently Coach in Korea, They mainly do parli and LD here, so I have been removed from the policy scene for almost a year now. However I do coach some one on the Korean national team.

derby debate coach 2 years 2018-2020

debated at campus for 4 years and 1 year in college.

LD: value criterion debate is the most important, each debate should say something along the lines i achieve my V/C as well as access my opponents value better. if the V/C debate goes unaddressed by both sides i default to who spoke prettier. your case should support your V/C. Case debate is import in proving your opponent cant access their V/C. that being said if the V/C debate is close/even I will then look to evaluate the case.

PFD: very traditional this isn't policy, dis ads plan text K's are a quick way to lose my ballot. I prefer a slightly above conversations speed level.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CFL update: IF it looks like I am not looking at the computer while you are speaking I have two monitors, one to follow on and read ev, one to watch the debate.

T-aff should be topical, if neg goes T I feel like it should be all in T or no T in 2nr at all. neg needs to impact t out and weigh it also just saying they aren't topical they lose is not okay, explain why topically is bad what is the tool we use to weigh it and what happens when we don't use this tool.

K- I'm good with most K's however don't assume I know the lit of them. explain it well. the alt is the most important thing on the k, if I don't understand how the alt solves or the alt doesn't make sense I probably wont vote on it.

CP- I'm good with most cp's i don't like topical CPS, However, I am open to hearing anything as long as you can defend it.

as far as theory goes I'm good with you making theory args but most of the time reject the arg not the team is sufficient for me to not vote on the argument.

condo- is really the only thing that I would vote on if there is actual abuse. not just bad time management.

disads- I like more true scenarios. I'm okay and should be able to follow most disad story lines. parts of the disad that I value the most in order

link>unqi>IL>impact>

case- case is important, one important thing to not do is on solvency; try or die doesn't makes sense to me if this is the only argument you have on Solvency. you either win the solvency flow or you don't its not try or die. Losing the solvency flow will lose you the round.

framing- if there is no framing analysis I default to impact calc. Just because you win the framing arg doesn't mean you win the round it means I weigh the round though that lens, yes it does help your odds of winning but doesn't insure it.

last notes- I find my self looking down when people are speaking its not out of disinterest its because it helps me focus better on what your saying and not on an annoying tick you may or may not have.

Greetings,

I am a fairly newish judge outside of Nashville. I entered the policy debate community in 2018, as the head debate coach for Hunters Lane High School in Nashville, Tennessee, a position that I still hold. I am also the Diocesan Director for the restarted Nashville Diocese of the National Catholic Forensic League. At this time, I have judged a few rounds officially but watched and flowed a great deal but nearly exclusively in Nashville.

Add me to your e-mail chain: Jason.Proffitt@mnps.org

Here Is What Is Worth Knowing about How I Judge:

Style: I'm probably a mash of policy/legislative framework, but I also believe that this is a game with rules. I believe that the aff must solve and the neg must compete and clash. I also believe this is all up for debate to anyone who can convince me otherwise. I want the rebuttals to argue to me how I should judge the debate and to explain the clash between the points and defend their framing.

Speed: I'm not the fastest flower, but if you give me a speech doc I'll work with your spreading. However, as almost any judge will tell you, clarity >>>>>> speed. If you can't be clear on your intentions, do not expect me to clean it up for you.

Helpfulness: If you want to know something, ask before the round; I try to be as open-book as possible. I want a good debate and will do everything in my power to enable debaters to enjoy a round within the rules.

K's: I don't love them, don't hate them. I care more about what you can do with one than that you have one. If you don't understand your K, don't expect me to be impressed by it. I do think that if you introduce alt-theory into debate then naturally you have a certain education burden that you need to prove, but that is true for any position of significance.

I'm willing to vote on CP, Theory, T, or against any of those things if you can frame it and weigh it. Prove it to me and educate me on it.

Congeniality: Be respectful to your opponent and judge, and let's enjoy the round. I will be respectful to you regardless of your preferences or experience. If I'm not looking at you often, it is because I focus on my flow and notes more than the actual speaker. I want to value the actual debate/evidence that you are presenting. I want you to feel welcome when I am judging you whatever your debate background and that you will get a fair hearing from me, and you can be assured that I work hard to make sure that you do. And yes, fair disclosure is part of congeniality.

Miscellaney: I care more about your utilization of evidence, clash, and comparison than your poise or wit. If I'm not looking at you, I'm probably flowing intensely and listening. I spend very little time watching the debaters; I prefer listening and note-taking/flowing as this gives clarity and removes bias.

For Novice Competitors:

-I allow open cross in novice rounds by default unless a tournament has different rules. In varsity, I tend to disallow unless there is a complicating factor (it is not a strong preference of mine). In middle divisions, I defer to the requests of teams, generally favoring when there is a hybrid team but giving a veto if there is a maverick.

--If you are new to debate as a participant or a coach, welcome! I am here to help!

--Novice debaters: Signposting is always appreciated!