Javorsky,+Zach

__** Policy Debate (Other events at bottom) **__ I was a policy debater at Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School during my time in high school and competed at many national circuit tournaments as well as many local ones as well and ran everything from Aspec to Taoism to Neolib to Ks critical of debate community practices all the way to things as ancient as Structural Inherency (if you don’t know what that is I will be more then happy to explain it too you). You name it I have probably read it at some point (doesn’t mean I like it). I now judge when I home from college.

Overview - Ultimately do what you want (you will regardless of my paradigm anyway). I believe this activity is about being able to articulate your side and you to persuade me to vote for your position. I am Tab and Therefore I will only vote for something if it’s in the round. I default to policy maker unless told otherwise.

All judges have some preconceived preferences and here are mine…

Impacts (general) I do prefer real world argumentation because I believe that best prepares a debater for the real world and that’s what the activity is about. That means I prefer solid link chains to get to the impact level and real world impacts. And yes in today’s geopolitical climate nuclear wars, dieses spreading (Ebola?) and extinction could be possible. But these scenario need to be supported by evidence and you need to win probability of them for me to vote on them. This means I am not just going to vote for you if you scream at me we have 30 nuclear wars to their 29 we should win you need to explain why your I/L are better. When evaluating impacts I default to this formula—Risk = Probability times Magnitude times timeframe. That means even if a scenario has very large magnitude if it has a probability of zero then it has no risk. I am willing to vote on a single defensive point (even an analytic) if you prove that it takes out chain of argumentation or the thesis of an argument. An argument is only as strong as its weakest link. Speed- Speed is fine. On a scale of 1-10 I can flow about an 8. Be clear on tags and Ill be happy. If I cant understand you Ill yell clear. Slowing down a bit in rebuttals and will go a long way with me.

Specific arguments

T- Willing to vote for it, always a voter. I want to see real in round abuse and show how your interpretations effects the education in the debate sense Dis-ads- Good, The more real world the better and prefer strong specific links and internal links PTIX- I am a Political junkie so I am knowledgeable about our current political climate and I understand how it works. That being said I think the Politics DA are dumb because of intrisicness and the fact that we are in a current period of congressional gridlock and nothing is getting done, but I will vote on it if you win it on the flow. CPs- Good especially if you have a solvency advocate Ks- Ks are fine and I enjoy a lot of K debates. My partner and I went for the Neolib K a lot my senior year. I am not well versed on some of the theory that comes along with more advanced Ks. Therefore you may need to explain a bit more so I understand it. Ultimately if I don’t understand it you didn’t articulate it enough and I can’t vote on it. Also in general I would like to see an Alternative but if you want me to vote neg purely on the plans flawed ideology I will do that because real world policy makers reject bills all the time based on ideology alone. Theory- I prefer theory to be rooted in the education of the debate space but will listen and vote on any theory if articulated well and impacted Performance Affs- I enjoy a good performance debate especially if it’s tied to the resolution. I do find the framework argument at times persuasive. Case debates- They make me very happy. I would love to see a one off or no off case throw down.

At the end of the round in rebuttals you should write my ballot for me you will be much happier with my decision if you do this and your speaker points will reflect it


 * __ If you have any questions at all let me know before the round Ill be happy to answer them. __****

Events other then policy
1) I will always vote off the flow

Specific Events-

=
I did some LD in my career, Ill vote strictly off the flow. Speeds fine (see policy paradigm). Explain to me how arguments interact with one other; especially how the philosophies interact with one another. Finally tell me explicitly why you win in rebuttals and Write my ballot for me and ill be happy and you’ll be happy. __**I don't care what arguments you run as long as you tell me why you win them and why that wins you the**__ **__debate__**=====

__**PFD**__
I flow and vote off the flow. Evidence is important so don't even think of making something up ill know even if your opponent doesn't. All arguments consist of claim, warrant and impact. If you do that and weigh the round in rebuttals Ill be a happy camper.