Zuckerman,+Jared

Blue Valley SW
Number of YEARS Judging: 16 Updated for 2017-2018-

Random Thoughts- I feel like I take my decision very seriously, but tend to evaluate more of the truth than the tech. I try to make sure I write a ballot for each team and think about which one I can live with more. As I get older, there are a few consistent things that I consistently value: First- persuasiveness matters. A few really good analytics are more rhetorically powerful than bad evidence on a politics DA. Really good spin is a lost art that you should remind yourself of in front of me. Second- I tend to evaluate debates as a policy maker. The nuances of that are fleshed out below. Third- decorum matters. Being nice is expected in the round. Being funny and having a good time is even more important. If you can do these things, I'll reward you when determining speaker points. It is possible to by hyper-competitive and have a good time. It's possible to be competitive and let your opponents have a good time too.

What you care about the most- I think teams should defend the resolution.

Critiques What is the link and why is it more important than the affirmative? I feel like the aff. should be able to weigh their 1ac against the criticism. I'm also not the best evaluator of these debates. Considering the number of debates over these arguments, there are probably an abundance of judges more qualified to evaluate them than myself.

Case Debate: I love smart case debates. I think this is a lost art. Presumption is something I'm willing to consider perhaps a little more than others.