Schneider,+Zach

Assistant Coach at Southern Illinois University SIU '15
 * Zach Schneider**


 * Experience**
 * 5 years national circuit collegiate parli (NPDA/NPTE)
 * 3x qualified and cleared at NPTE
 * 2015 NPTE Champion


 * Quick Hits (TL;DR)**
 * This is your debate round, not mine. As a debater, I have read and gone for policy affs, critical promotions of hegemony, anti-blackness, Nietzsche, econ disads, CPs, theory, jazz performance, and everything in between. If you tell me how to evaluate your argument (framework) and why it matters (impacts/solvency), I will vote on it.
 * I am involved in debate because I love the activity. Whether you're a critical team, policy team, or somewhere in between, I'm here because I want to judge you. I enjoy DA/CP debates, K debates, framework debates, and T debates: unless your A strat is spec and delay, I will love judging you regardless of what strategies you like to read. The point: don't low-pref me because you don't know me or see a scary buzzword in my philosophy. Pref me, teach me your favorite arguments, execute your strategy, and we'll get along swimmingly.
 * If you want to go super in-depth, I maintain my complete judging history as a Google doc here.


 * Meta-debate**
 * I can flow you at whatever speed you’d like to go. Please slow down and be clear on tags, plan/alt texts, and interpretations.
 * I evaluate the debate based upon my flow and the line-by-line arguments that it contains. I think I would find it very difficult to evaluate a debate in any other fashion, but if you would like me to do so, you should specifically make and justify the argument.
 * Unless a compelling argument is made to the contrary, I don't auto-kick any positions for you. I think it's good for 2NRs to have to think strategically and select the best world to go for.
 * Your last two rebuttals should be spent comparing evidence and telling me why your claims are more credible- you probably shouldn’t be reading m/any cards in the last two speeches. It makes my job easier and it makes you more likely to like my decision.
 * Absent specific impact calculus, I weigh impacts by magnitude with probability and timeframe as mitigating factors. Please don’t fail to provide me with specific impact calculus in the rebuttals.


 * __Specifics__**


 * Offense/defense**
 * Offense wins championships, but smart defense is underutilized. I am willing to assess terminal defense/no risk of something.
 * I generally evaluate defense as either probability (arguments that the impact is unlikely - e.g. MAD checks) or possibility (it is structurally impossible for the impact to happen - e.g. Brazil cannot launch a nuclear first strike because they do not have nuclear weapons). If you concede your impact is impossible, I will assess 0 risk of it. If you concede your impact is improbable, I will compare the strength of the two claims and decide how much risk to assess (or, ideally, you do this comparison for me in a rebuttal).


 * Disads**
 * Intrinsic, specific, well-sourced, big-stick disads are definitely in my wheelhouse as a debater and as a judge.
 * Comparative link/impact analysis in the rebuttals is likely to be the deciding factor in the debate
 * “Extend the defense” is not an argument, please take the five seconds to say “extend MAD checks nuclear war” or whatever. I am often enamored of affirmatives that take the time to exploit lazy kicking of disads.


 * Counterplans**
 * Functional competition is obviously necessary. I am not inclined to believe counterplans need to be textually competitive; you should read other, more specific theory against the CP
 * Condo is good. However I’m not fond of multiple contradictory worlds, particularly if you read the K with some other position that double turns it.


 * T**
 * I default to evaluating the debate through competing interpretations. Feel free to argue another framework, but I think I’ve yet to hear a credible justification for reasonability.
 * The affirmative should lose every debate if they fail to read either a “we meet” or a competitive counterinterpretation to T. I do not require in-round abuse to vote on T.
 * T is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue; the aff does not get to win because they were topical. (K of T is different - I am quite inclined to believe that T is good/does not lead to genocide, but I will not dismiss the argument with prejudice as I will generic RVIs.)


 * Other theory**
 * On spec, in the words of one of my favorite judges: "These arguments are not my cup of tea. That's mostly because I don't like giant pieces of shit in my tea." I am exceptionally unlikely to vote on spec unless presented with in-round evidence of significant ground-shifting by the affirmative causing the neg to lose access to their substantive strategy. I won't punish you just for reading spec in the 1NC but I will be irritated at best if you go for it in the block and you aren't getting hosed by a blatantly abusive 2AC.
 * I default to rejecting the arg unless given a reason to reject the team.
 * I think my views on counterplans are par for the course. PICs, agent CPs, advantage CPs, and process CPs are fine. Consult is ok with specific solvency evidence and evidence that consult isn't normal means. Conditions is probably ok if it's in the lit. Veto cheato, floating PICs, delay, and other cheater CPs are bad (which is not to say I won't vote for them if the aff fails to read a theoretical objection).


 * The K**
 * I'm quite comfortable evaluating these arguments. I have spent a substantial amount of time in debates reading Nietzsche, DNG, Wilderson, and disability based positions. I nearly always enjoy a nuanced, knowledgeable 2NR on the K.
 * I am familiar with (and willing to listen to) most debate K authors - but you need to be explaining your arguments, not just dropping buzzwords and expecting me to fill in warrants for you. I am rarely compelled by author indicts unless there's an accompanying impact. ("DnG is complicated and hard to understand" = bad author indict. "Heidegger thought Jews don't have Dasein which the Germans used as justification for the Holocaust" = good author indict.)
 * If you are aff, you need to either be telling me why the logic of the K results in bad things (impact turns) or why the affirmative is compatible with the logic of the K (link turns/perms). Reading K-specific cards is always much more compelling than generic "state good/policymaking good" cards.


 * Nontraditional Affs**
 * I am fairly inclined to believe that the affirmative should defend topical action. I am not necessarily inclined to believe that the affirmative must do so via a fiated plan. I actually really enjoy "clash of civ" debates.
 * I'm currently wandering around somewhere between the two civilizations. I've voted in a variety of fashions in these debates and I'm probably a decent pref but not a sure bet for both sides.
 * I tend to think of good framework shells as a countermethod of policymaking (as opposed to whatever method/advocacy the aff is defending). To that end, I find that the most effective framework arguments are functionally disadvantages to the affirmative method and/or net benefits to the method of policymaking. I really love deep, nuanced defenses and/or rejections of the policymaking process. If your terminal impact is "they took our DA ground" you're gonna have a bad time.


 * __Miscellaneous Stuff__**


 * Speaker points**
 * Comparative impact analysis in the final rebuttals is the most effective use of your time, both in garnering speaker points and winning the debate. Your object should be to isolate a small number of relevant arguments (ideally, the ones you want to see on my ballot) and tell me why they access the most substantial impacts or why they should be preferred over the other team.
 * I will attempt to maintain the community median with regards to speaker points. 29+ = elite, 28+ = should break, 27+ = average, less than 26 = you did something patently offensive.
 * Being funny and employing Internet memes is good. Being an asshat or being racist/sexist/homophobic/otherwise offensive is bad. Your speaks will grow or shrink accordingly.

Feel free to contact me with questions- zach@schneid.io