Thornhill,+Zach

Hey y'all my name is Zach and just call me that. Pronouns are he, you, judge, I don't care. My biggest thing is that I am here to listen to discourse on issues and decide which world is best. With that said, I am a hardcore policymaker judge. To me there are 2 worlds for me to evaluate, the world of the Aff and the world of the negative. I will get into more specifics later

BIO: I am currently a sophomore at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. I do NFALD now and had 4 years of policy experience in high school debating on the Missouri circuit (I know it's not the best) I qualified to NSDA Nats my junior and senior year though. I am majoring in criminal justice with minors in communications and political science. If that doesn't lead you to know that I am pre-law then I guess I will add that as well. With that being said I love clash. Give me A LOT.

SPEED: I can do speed. I do have some conditions though. If you choose to speed then slow down your tag lines and say what it is whether that is subpointing the 1AC or saying net benefits on a counterplan or impacts/ uniqueness/ link/ internal or whatever on a Disad just let me know. Also READ T SHELLS SLOWLY!!!! I need to hear the definitions, standards and voters. Bottom line is if it isn't on my flow I can't vote for it. Also if speed is used as a weapon I will tank speaks and give a lot of ground to theory against it.

TOPICALITY/THEORY: I have recently had some change of heart here because I have been screwed over too many times. I will vote on potential abuse and I default to competing interps. I don't need proven abuse but it is definitely helpful. I do say if you want to win T you need to go all in in the 2NR and win the full shell. When it comes to theory I love it. I tend to flow it on a different sheet so tell me when I need to pull one out. That being said I don't see theory as a means of winning the ballot. It is just a means of getting me to not evaluate an argument.

DISADS: RUN THEM!!!!! LOTS OF THEM!!!! As a policy maker this is my bread and butter. However, if you run generic links that's no bueno for me. generic links from the Neg means generic responses from the Aff are acceptable. I don't want a generic debate y'all. give me some links that pertain to the case at hand.

CPs: They exist. I never really run them but I do know how they work and I will evaluate them. Also prove it competitive. (Hint: I like Disads. that can help.)

Kritiks: I will vote for them but I am not a big fan. NEVER RUN MULTIPLE IN ONE ROUND!!!! The Alt debate turns ugly and I don't want to deal with that. AFFs SHOULD HAVE A PLAN!!!! I DON'T CARE IF YOU HAVE SUPER CRITICAL ADVANTAGES BUT GIVE ME A PLAN TO EVALUATE!!!!! I don't like performance debate and if nothing else just default back to what I said about being a policy maker. It's called policy debate for a reason. Let's talk about policies.

CONDO: I have had to add this part because I am tired of seeing how condo is used in rounds to be abusive. Multiple conditional advocacies that bite each other such as a neolib K coupled with a consult CP or State CP or anything is an issue for me. It makes it too difficult to be aff because any turns on those arguments can be used as impacts for the other postition. One conditional advocacy is an okay strat but if there are multiple it becomes an issue for me. Aff's get one world and I am giving the negative the benefit of having 2. I also listen to the theory on condo a lot. running it will be effective in front of me.

Other than this PLEASE feel free to ask me. I only bite on tuesdays. Pref me a 1 and I'll be able to give you an experienced and fairly well rounded and open round.