Schaller,+Zachary

Experience: 4 years high school policy debate, 5 years college policy (West Georgia & Georgia State U 2006-2011) 4-time NDT participant, NDT double octofinalist, CEDA 3-time double octofinalist, Quarterfinalist at Northwestern and numerous elim appearances.

Philosophy: Debated a long time, seen and done it all. Do whatever you want just be able to justify why it means you should win. If you have more specific questions than what is listed here, please feel free to ask.

Style: Speed is good, Clarity is important also. Don't use a lot of filler words. Try not to be rude to people. Tag-team in CX fine. Overviews and impact calculus are always a good idea. I don't like to read a ton of evidence after rounds; I'd prefer to judge based on what's on the flow so I don't have to re-read your entire blocks to decipher what your args are - I'd rather just take your word for it. Humor is appreciated, but so is the ability to throw down hard to do whatever it takes to win. I used to read big-stick policy affs with 20 impacts, critical performance affs with no plan, and every concievable type of negative argument. Debater flexibility is good -- you need to be able to go for anything it takes to win.

Topicality: I will vote on T, but I'm more likely to vote on it if there's a compelling ground loss, limits, or extra/effects argument. Saying 'T is a stock issue' doesn't really do much for me, so you have to explain why T outweighs and give impact calculus just like any other argument. I'm a careful flow so embedded or hidden T args can win my ballot. I will default to competing interpretations, but I am sympathetic to over-limits and aff flex arguments as a reason to prefer reasonability.

Theory: I believe that negative conditionality is fine within reason, PICS are allowable, and the neg gets to read a Kritik. I can be persuaded otherwise but it's up to the debaters to demonstrate why a particular argument should be disallowed from the debate or why the other team's position is so theoretically illegitimate that it merits a loss. I'm much more likely to 'reject the argument, not the team', unless the theory can be proven to be a gateway issue. Theory is just like T, you have to win reasons why they are making the activity unfair and why that matters, and you have to win impact calculus just like any other position.

Disads: I like disads and case debates, although they are somewhat rare these days. Had a lot of fun with tricky politics scenarios in my day. Don't read week-old uniqueness in front of me or I will think you are lazy. Give me impact calc and add-on impacts in the top of the 2nc and make the disad turn case if you can. On the aff I used to sneak theory arguments into my disad blocks with some success. The success or failure of these debates typically hinges on the strength of the link/ link turn evidence so try to be comparative, especially in the 2ar and 2nr.

Counterplans: Agent counterplans, plan-Inclusive counterplans and process counterplans are all fine. I used to read a lot of consult and conditions counterplans, but it requires finesse to demonstrate how these counterplans are competitive -- artificially competitive counterplans can be won in front of me, but it requires some careful theory work and probably some normal means cards. For any process counterplan I will determine competition based on who has evidence actually describing the 'normal means' process for the aff. I believe that the aff 'only has to defend desirability, not implementation', but if there is evidence describing how that implementation process would go down, then to me that is a basis for competition. Legitimate counterplans are usually functionally-competitive-plan-minus, but if you can win why language/ reps are important, then those arguments can help to persuade me why your language PIC is legitimate. I read the word PIC a ton so I enjoy those debates, just win your competition theory.

Kritiks: I loved the K my whole life I have a BA in philosophy with a focus in postmodernism and poststructuralism. I'm very familiar with Lacan, Deleuze, Nietzsche, Marx, Foucault, Heideggar, Baudrillard, and Postcolonial theory. I appreciate when people have actually read the literature behind their criticism and can accurately interpret what their author is saying. An eloquent K-debater who is well read is likely to get great speaker points from me. That said, the neg needs to demonstrate how the critique outweighs the aff, internal link turns or disproves the affs impacts, or needs to win a framework argument for why the aff should be viewed as a speech act or why the nature of fiat can allow me to ignore the aff's impacts. The neg gets to read a K, and the aff gets to weigh their impacts versus the K is my default philosophy, but I can be persuaded to evaluate non-fiat impacts first. I like it when there's a compelling reason why the K alternative solves the aff that way it's not just an impact comparison. On the aff, I like it when you can counter-critique or just impact turn the K.

Case: Case defense is pretty standard. If you are going for a DA you probably need some impact takeouts also unless you can 100% turn the case. If you have good solvency turns, please feel free to read them. It's impressive to me when a neg team can prove that the aff actually makes it worse.