Zelmer,+Ryan

If you are looking at this right before the round, the content section is below, but I think the background is also very helpful. Also, I'm always open to asking questions so feel free to ask me anything.

BACKGROUND

I believe that debate background can be one of the most helpful ways to understand some of the processes that go into my evaluation of a debate round. I was first exposed to the activity in South Dakota, where I debated for 3 years at Sioux Falls Lincoln High School under the coaching of Kim Maas. While debating in high school, I was exposed to a circuit where case debating, theroetical inherency questions, prima facia burdens, minor repairs, and justifications were all arguments that could win rounds. I was judged by debate coaches, college students who had done debate, and just some busdrivers and parents who had to fill out the pool as lay judges. This did not entirely define my high school debate career, however, as I was still exposed to at least the idea of debate theory, criticisms, and even the notion of what then was referred to as performance debate. I traveled outside the state to seek competition in Minnesota, as well as earned the right to travel to the NFL (now NSDA) national tournament both my second and third (final) year of debating. While in high school, my partner and I engaged in every type of debate we could, including running conditional arguments that caused our coach to lose hope for us and altogether stop giving us advice or feedback on our debating. All that to say I grew up in a very conservative circuit of debate that has some remanants of influence on the way I view a debate, but very little.

After high school, I quickly came back to high school debate to help out my alma matter with as much coaching as I could and began judging rounds immediately. Shortly thereafter, I moved out of South Dakota and found my way to Minnesota, where I took another small break (about a semester) before I once again got back into the judging pool and started judging tournaments here and there. By the time I was in my third year at the University of Minnesota, the opportunity to debate in college arose. On the budding gophers squad, I debated for one semester before realizing that balancing a biomedical engineering degree and debate and a social life is truly impossible. So I had about a semester of exposure to college debate, where I was mildly successful and went 4-4 at some majors like Kentucky and Wake and broke at both of the Texas Swing tournaments (UNT - made it to octos and UTD).

In my final year of college (2008-2009), I finally entered the scene of coaching debate where I have happily been ever since. I've been coaching at Minneapolis South since the following season (2009-2010). I love coaching so much more than judging (I don't really like judging at all, you debaters take the competition in this activity way too seriously and it makes me uncomfortable to vote against any team because I'm worried about how much value you place in that loss), and have had a blast coaching my teams on every kind of argument that exists from structural inherency questions (never really made that argument much, though) to saying absolutely nothing in debate rounds as a performance to absolute nonsense in the form of Dada. Recently, it's been my pride to coach teams who don't rely on reading tons of evidence and instead rely on smart analysis and thinking on their feet to contextualize arguments in the round. If you debate that way, you're probably right up my alley.

Currently, I work as a judicial law clerk to a district court judge in St. Paul, MN. I intend to eventually find my way into a public defender's office and hopefully do something about our entirely fucked system of criminal justice. I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant, but I figured I'd mention it for as much background as possible. They say that a trial is won in jury selection, and I think there are analogs to debate there in so far as tournaments can be made substantially easier or harder based upon your pref sheet, and so I'm trying to give you all the info that you'd want. You should hear some of the questions attorneys will ask in voir dire (where do you get your news?, etc).

This year (2014-15) I have observed or judged rounds at the Niles tournament, Valley, Dowling, and several local Minnesota tournaments. I'd say in total I've judged about 20+ rounds. I don't really like judging debates involving plans, but I seem to do it often, and certainly have voted for them.

CONTENT

I attempt to not police content in debate, but it's going to be really difficult to win arguments that are just not very palatable in front of me. Those are arguments that you would find neocons making like Heg good, China war now is better than later, etc. On the other hand, I don't think it's much of an uphill battle to win extinction good turns and I've voted on them plenty of times. All in all, I'm more down to vote for arguments that have fewer, stronger internal links than the opposite.

Another note on content policing - I am pretty unlikely to vote on the Fuck K, not that you can't make it, I'm just sympathetic to the argument that anyone can fuck, and that the contextualizing of the word is important. In fact, I'm probably going to use some profane language in the round. Hopefully, I will ask you before I drop any of that profane langauge if it is ok, but I apologize in advance for offending anyone with it. Any hateful language is ENTIRELY not cool, and I'll vote on gendered language or other arguments about oppressive language in a heartbeat, but for some reason I don't believe profane language to fall under those categories. If you aren't cool with profane language, please let me know, and I will do my best to refrain.

Honestly, if you read a plan in the traditional sense, I probably wouldn't pref me. It's not that I dont vote for them, it's just that I honestly don't like judging those debates and you ought to know that. I don't mess with speaker points as a result, but I'm just so much more on the side of the K (I guess that's what I'll call it), that any team who can do solid analysis throughout the K debate will win against a team that does equally solid analysis in favor of the plan, it's just where the believability lies for me. I really don't think I'm a hack, and you're probably disagreeing with me as you read this, but instead of writing here that I'm totally neutral (because that would be a lie, I'm human, not a robot, and anyone who says they are totally neutral is just refusing to acknowledge their bias), I just want to be upfront about that. I really do strive to be a neutral judge, but I'm human.

You should also slow down. I particularly hate calling cards at the end of the round because I feel like that is the job of the debaters to ARGUE about the quality of the evidence presented by both teams. If there is a dispute about the quality of evidence, obviously I will call it to make sure one team is not blatantly misrepresenting evidence. However, I think that interpretations of evidence are very fluid and thus feel there is a need to advance several arguments to guide how I should read the evidence for me to not intervene when I call the card and read that card. In order to effectively judge this way, it's important that you not blaze through arguments. Otherwise, we are going to have a postround where you hear me say "sorry, that didn't come across the way you wanted it to in your 2nr/2ar because it was delivered too quickly and emphasis not placed on it." I'm not about to just call all of your cards and do the work for you. I know you only have 5 minutes and that sucks a lot, but just do your best to explain the important parts of arguments.

With respect to that, at the end of the round, I'm comparing the 2NR/2AR. That isn't to say the rest of the debate isn't monumentally important with respect to shaping how I will view the 2NR/2AR, but moreso to say if it isn't there in the 2NR/2AR, then I'm sure not going to vote on it. I love cross-x, it's the best part of the debate by far. But, if you're mean during cross-x, you're going to ruin my favorite part of debate and that's going to effect the way I perceive the rest of the debate. Please don't be agressive, don't just go off talking about irrelevant stuff when you're asked a question, and try to make cross-x important.

My advice would be to do whatever your best at, and explain why doing what your best at is a reason to circle the ballot for whatever side you happen to be debating on. I tend to think that every argument needs an evaluative framework or appreciate when one is given. I particularly like teams that can not be too serious about the round and crack a few jokes here and there while still debating well. I enjoy a good debate where teams aren't lost in blocks, but making eye contact with me (I will make it back) and explaining why they are winning the debate. Write my ballot for me with your 2NR/2AR, please?