Zimmermann,+Leo


 * NOTE: Big Lex is my first high school tournament of the year; expect topical cluelessness.**

OVERVIEW:

I'm pretty sure that unless told otherwise I operate on pretty standard settings. This means: Topicality is a gateway issue; I weigh the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the plan; counterplans are opportunity costs of the plan; permutations test their competition. I am happy to add up plusses and minuses like a (I think) a fairly predictable calculator. I am loath to vote on a trivial theory argument.

Empirically it is very possible to crack me out of calculator mode. When this happens, everything becomes a little more unpredictable. The territory is more uncertain and much more attention to the big picture is required. What I need in these types of situations is a good story about who I am and what I'm doing in this room with you. (It remains very possible to convince me to be a body count calculator.)

THEORY:

You have to do some work to make me care. Provide good explanations of 'fairness' and 'education'--what they do, how they interact, and how they are at stake. Probably, though, unless something conspicuously unfair is happening, you shouldn't invest too much in this type of thing.

KRITIKS:

Running them: - It's important to do something competitive with the aff. - I appreciate original thinking and research. - Style is important. Control the narrative.

Answering them: - CX is a very good time to pin things down. Use it to get commitments about the nature of the position, not to nitpick. - A lot of aff theory vs. kritiks makes sense to me, although it's usually not a voting issue. "Floating PICs Bad," if it applies, can be a very effective argument.

On the aff: I think plans are a useful way for organizing debate around the affirmation or negation of a specific thing. Otherwise, I find it pretty difficult to just compare two performances side by side. It's probably good to have a focal point to your advocacy--something there can be a debate about.

DA / CASE / ETC:

Probability is probably important. My default setting is a standard probability times magnitude calculation, but I am inherently suspicious of long causal chains. Defense goes a long way. (You still can't win with defense alone.) Actually, I'm suspicious in general. (We are all lying scumbags.)

BEHAVIOR:

- I like to hear the words you're saying when you read cards. - I appreciate weirdness and humor - I dislike misplaced or excessive aggression. - It's still all up for debate!

GUILTY PLEASURES: - Intrinsicness perms on politics DAs, - Whole rez - Debate metadata

ABOUT ME:

I debated on the national circuit in high school, then on and off in college. (I read a lot of stereotypically "K" lit when I wasn't doing debate.) Since college I have mostly seen fairly untechnical 'clash of civilizations' debates, so there are no guarantees that I know your acronyms, etc.

I hope this document is at least a little useful. I'll try to update it as I do more judging; all I can really do is tell you how my thought processes have worked in the past. I won't claim to be a very predictable actor.