Former debater, favor traditional LD.

Don't spread, focus on the argument your opponent has offered and respond.

I don't score CX. Please use it for clarification and to better understand your opponent's position.

Rude or inappropriate behavior will lose you the round. I have 0 tolerance for bullying or belligerence.

I am a former high school debater that has dabbled in everything. I’ve been judging for the past six years and have judged everything, but policy. I recently graduated with a degree in Anthropology, with a focus on cultural anthropology. I’m a pretty typical PF judge and will vote for the team with the most compelling argument, however, I do like a solid framework. As far as cross goes, I don’t care if you sit or stand—whatever is most comfortable for you works for me. I don’t like when you address me during cross because I feel like you should be focused on your opponents instead. My BIGGIE is DO NOT SPREAD. If you are going too fast, I will not flow the round and drop you. This is PF, not policy. I have an extensive speech background and will be pretty merciless when it comes to speaker points. Other than that, remember to be respectful during the debate. Things can get pretty heated sometimes, but that is no excuse for rudeness. If you say things during the round that that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will drop you immediately. Let’s be kind to one another and remember to have fun! I look forward to hearing some good debates!

In order to win the round, you need to fully demonstarte why either the aff/neg world is better. I also expect you to make clear, percise arguments, I cannot spend my time trying to puzzle your arguments together; you need to make them clear.

A few quick notes on specific argumentation:

Speed/Clarity: I'm fine with fast debate, but be careful with clarity. If an argument doesn't make it on my flow, I obviously can't evaluate it. I'll give you one verbal warning if you're unclear. If I still can't flow your arument, it's up to you to notice this and slow down.

Framing: I come into the round assuming that the affirmative should have some sort of advocacy. Of course, I can be persuaded otherwise if your arguments make sense. I believe that whatever route you take should be justified if the other team doesn't necessarily agree. Your job as a debater is to tell me how and why I should evaluate the round under a particular framework.

Weighing: You need to tell me how and what way I should weigh the round, otherwise you risk the chance of me evaluating the debate in a different way than you intended. I prefer that you spend time weighing and strategically layering the debate instead of making more arguments that don't link back or have a coherent ballot story. If empirics clash, I am impressed by a good methodology comparison.

Theory: I'm not the biggest fan of Theory, but I'm more than happy to vote on it if it is run. I don't default to competing interpretations. In fact, I don't like it all that much, and unless you spend some serious time justifying it when you first run your shell, I won't vote someone down if they answer theory without a counter-interpretation.

Speaker points: I love to see witty, entertaining debaters. Read what you’re comfortable with. I don’t mind banter. I do mind being a jerk to your opponents. Keep it classy, entertaining, and fun (or, at least, powerful/passionate) and it will reflect well in speaks. I have my own scale for what I use for speaker points if you are perfect and I feel there is nothing you could've improved on, I will give you a 30. I will give you a 29, for minor mistakes. A 28 for mistakes here and there. A 27 for mistakes throughout your whole entire argument, and Finally a 26, in which means that I feel that you have a lot of room for improvement

Timing: I am the official timer in the round, You are allowed to time yourselves, but please note that my timer is the official one. In order to maximize your speaking time, clarify to me exactly when your intention of starting your time. Also, during prep time, please clarify to me as to whether or not you are using a running prep-time or a specific amount of time.

Definitions: I understand that I need clarification for what specific words mean, but my biggest pet peave in debate is when the round is solely focused on definitions. Unless the definition of a word is a critical part of your argument, please reframe from solely arguing definitions.

I look forward to our round together and wish you the best of luck!

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com