Zucker%2C+James

James Zucker Loyola High School Debate Coach jzucker@loyolahs.edu

Judging Paradigm: Policy Debate

Debate Experience and Philosophy

I am a Debate Coach at Loyola High School where I teach Social Studies classes including AP US History/Honors World History. I participated in Debate in High School in both Lincoln-Douglass and Congress. I see Speech and Debate, as a primarily educational extracurricular activity that helps students be informed and aware of current social issues and values conflicts. Also, I see it as an educational activity for students to develop skills in public speaking that are persuasive, engaging, and that establish a well-constructed argument. It doesn’t hurt that Debate tournaments are a great place for students to meet future girlfriends/boyfriends.

Criteria for Judging

1. I see Policy as a debate over values, application to current social issues, and a weighing of the impacts of government policies. So, my view on Policy debates is very open for a wide area of discussion.

2. My overall judging criteria for a policy debate is to look at the plan and how well it affirms the resolution. I tend to primarily look at weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a plan. However, I am open to Counterplans as an alternative to the Affirmative attempt to affirm the resolution.

3. While I do believe that there are basic rules to the fairness of a debate, I see the overall purpose as a rhetorical game teaching students how to view and argue multiple sides of an argument. So, I am open to any issue that a Debater wants to raise such as Kritiks, Topicality or Abuse Theory.

4. Still, I do suggest that you should not stick to only one strategy of attack. If an entire Debate is limited to the grounds of a single Kritik or Abuse Theory, I will look for the other side to push the Debate back to the overall issue that is in the Resolution. If the opposite side doesn’t do this, then I will grant the single issue raised by the Affirmative or the Negative.

5. I understand that individual Debaters are now trained to talk quickly in order to get out a lot of information. This skill is necessary to compete on the national circuit. However, speed does not equate to persuasiveness. If you see me stop typing for a while or put down my pen, this is probably because I can’t understand what you are saying at the current speed. I would suggest slightly slowing down so that I can catch your major argument.

James Zucker Loyola High School Debate Coach jzucker@loyolahs.edu

Judging Paradigm: Lincoln-Douglass

Debate Experience and Philosophy

I am a Debate Coach at Loyola High School where I teach Social Studies classes including AP US History/Honors World History. I participated in Debate in High School in both Lincoln-Douglass and Congress. I see Speech and Debate, as a primarily educational extracurricular activity that helps students be informed and aware of current social issues and values conflicts. Also, I see it as an educational activity for students to develop skills in public speaking that are persuasive, engaging, and that establish a well-constructed argument. It doesn’t hurt that Debate tournaments are a great place for students to meet future girlfriends/boyfriends.

Criteria for Judging

1. I see Lincoln-Douglass as primarily a debate over values and their application to current social issues and conflicts. So, the individual to win or hold the strongest position on the values question and its application (criteria) will hold the advantage in the debate.

2. I do not believe in an either/or position on the issue of deontological or ontological values. The definition of the value and its impact are equally important. So, I will also look at a weighing of the impacts of a debate.

3. While I do believe that there are basic rules to the fairness of a debate, I see the overall purpose as a rhetorical game teaching students how to view and argue multiple sides of an argument. So, I am open to any issue that a Debater wants to raise such as Kritiks or Abuse Theory.

4. Still, I do suggest that you should not stick to only one strategy of attack. If an entire Debate is limited to the grounds of a single Kritik or Abuse Theory, I will look for the other side to push the Debate back to the overall issue that is in the Resolution. If the opposite side doesn’t do this, then I will grant the single issue raised by the Affirmative or the Negative.

5. I understand that individual Debaters are now trained to talk quickly in order to get out a lot of information. This skill is necessary to compete on the national circuit. However, speed does not equate to persuasiveness. If you see me stop typing for a while or put down my pen, this is probably because I can’t understand what you are saying at the current speed. I would suggest slightly slowing down so that I can catch your major argument.