Preston,+Zach

Name: Zach Preston School : Berkeley Prep Position (e.g. Assistant Coach): Judging Experience: 6 years Provide Preferred Method of Contact (Email/Phone ): ZPreston@gmail.com

Process Preferences. What do you require debaters to do in a round and how do you view your role as judge (e.g., to reward, to sanction behaviors).

1. Briefly describe your view of proper debate etiquette and how you will evaluate /enforce deviations.

Debate is a professional, yet fun activity used to increase the education of everyone involved. Professional etiquette should be used, no laughing at teams, interruptions, bulling, etc. Speaker points will show the effects of bad etiquette.

2. Evidence citations ( what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud)

Author’s full name and full date.

3. Reading evidence after the round ( under what conditions will you read evidence).

Only if the warrants of a specific card are challenged. 4. Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner)

A.) During C/X: Go ahead- but don't take over your partners cross-x  B.) During Speeches: Again- go ahead but don't be a puppet.

Paradigm and Argument Preferences

6. Would you characterize yourself as having a particular paradigm you consistently default to? If so, what is it and what does this mean to you? Would you ever vote in a different paradigm? If so, when and why?

I am a policy judge, I like to see an actual case versus a CP or DA’s, I would vote on theory, topicality, or kritiks as long as they are explained and extended properly.

7. Please compare issues of presentation and content. Do you view debate as primarily an activity of communication and persuasiveness? Do you view debate as a search for the best policy option? In other words, does the team with a better presentation/style always win the debate? Under what conditions, if any, would you give a low-point win?

I view debate as a search for the best policy option, meaning what ever team proves that their stance is better I will vote on them. A low point win would only come if a team wins only because a small point was dropped but the other team was very persuasive and knowledgeable about everything else.

Argument Preferences- include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding: 8. Topicality: I only vote on T if the entire shell is extended and explained why the definition is better.

9. Disadvantages: 100% if it gets turned then it goes aff if neg. drop it or it goes neg if they are winning it with all points of it still intact

10. Counterplans: A.)Do counterplans need to be non-topical? yes

B.) What makes a counterplan legitimate? It has to be competitive either solving case better, or solving a net benefit.

11. Kritiks: A.) Will you/do you vote on kritiks? yes

B.) If yes, what does the team running at kritik need to do to win the argument?

The team most extended and explained of the kritik and show an understanding of the argument

12. Theory. Please explain any predispositions you have for or against issues of theory. How likely are you to vote on theoretical arguments (permutations, severance, conditionality, inherency, textual kritik alternatives, specialized topicality issues, dispositionality, etc.)?

I will vote on theory if the abuse is clear in the round and it is explained when extended.

13. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debate issues?

The teams need to prove exactly what the case argument does to the plan itself.

Style and Performance

Please comment- you can circle and/or explain your philosophy regarding the following: 14. Speed of Delivery (slower-equal to or less than conversation speed) (faster) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ** 8 ** 9 10  Will you indicate to the debaters if you need him/her to articulate more and/or change speed? If so, how?

I will simply say clearer

15. How do analytical arguments weigh against evidence based arguments?

As long as the analytic is understood and common knowledge, it weighs just below an argument is not the same level.

16. What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC ( meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)?

New offcase is a little abusive but case arguments are okay.