Aaron+Zisook

=Aaron Zisook=

History (at least as it relates to debate)
I debated for three years in LD at New Trier from 2006-2008. I competed a bit on the national circuit senior year, breaking even at Greenhill, St. Mark's, Valley, Apple Valley (and then in round 7 I won so I ended 4-3). I also was 4-3 at Glenbrooks. Mediocrity is fun; you don't have to worry about being the best, but you're not the idiot either.

Paradigm
I have terrible handwriting. Do not expect my to keep up with your 250 word/minute AC from hell. Maybe you should run the 200 word/minute one instead. Or the lay judge case if you want to avoid giving me carpal tunnel. The point is, I don't have anything against speed, just know that I'm not exactly able to flow really fast cases.

With regards to my argumentative preferences, I don't tend to vote down arguments just because I dislike them, but if I will try to find ways where I can ignore bad arguments. I don't really like theory unless it's 1. Run against actual abuse, and 2. A central part of your strategy. Please spare me your 1-minute theory dump. I'm okay with most arguments, so long as they're well explained. Again, I don't intervene on the flow, but I don't like giving high speaker points to people I find are just regurgitating a case their coach wrote that they don't understand.

I really like it when people give me weighing, preferably to some agreed upon mechanism through which impacts can be measured (you know, like a standard). It's not my job to intervene on the flow, and you don't want me to, because there is no limit to how arbitrary I can be if I am not given weighing and have to do that myself.

Also, I tend to prefer an oral disclosure of decision and don't really like writing all over the ballot due to bad handwriting. If you absolutely must have written comments, give me your e-mail address and I'll type out a verbose, well-written, critique of your debating.

So in short, I'm kind a "flow judge" with bad handwriting.