Ewing,+Zoe


 * Zoë Ewing**

I did LD for 4 years for Scarsdale High School and graduated in 2017. I went to the TOC my junior and senior years, accumulating 9 career bids and clearing my senior year. I now go to Columbia University and judge mostly in the Northeast. Email: zoeewing99@gmail.com (I’d appreciate being on email chains to speed up the process if I have to call for evidence after the round. I won’t open speech docs during the round in order to make sure I don’t miss extemped arguments)
 * Background**


 * Note for TOC:** Coaching American Heritage AD and Byram Hills LP at TOC this year. I haven't judged since Lexington, so please slow down at the beginning of your speeches & be super clear when reading interp and advocacy texts. Also, have fun and relax--the TOC is an intense place to be, but by no means is it the determiner of your worth or success in debate!

Ideally, I’d judge similarly to Mark Gorthey or Rahul Gosain. However, I don’t have as much faith in my flowing abilities as I have in theirs so bear that in mind. I was never good at flowing as a debater so please slow down on author names, interps, and advocacy texts. I tended to be a theory/framework debater but read basically every kind of position over the course of my debate career. I have no preference as to what you do with your speech time as long as your arguments have warrants and structure. To quote Rahul, “If you’re ahead, even by just a little bit, on the side of an issue I’m not inclined towards, I’ll vote for you.” That being said, please don’t assume I’m familiar with any dense literature and clearly explain the ballot implications of every argument. I will aim to be as tab as possible and will vote on any argument **with a warran**t* as long as it isn’t abhorrent. This doesn’t mean I would auto-drop your opponent if you said “util justifies atrocities,” this means I wouldn’t vote on an explicitly offensive argument that makes me or others in the room feel uncomfortable or unsafe. I also believe strongly in trigger warnings for graphic narratives or discussions of particularly sensitive issues.
 * General**


 * EDIT 11/12/17:** I want to explain the "voting on any argument with a warrant" thing more because I've changed my stance a bit to be more stringent. I've decided this means I won't vote on an argument that doesn't have a warrant I'd be comfortable explaining back even if it's conceded. Examples would include blatantly false semantic I-meets or an a priori that said "the sky is blue so automatically affirm."

I will never use a default if an argument is made on the issue—the defaults are only here for the (hopefully rare) case when no debater makes a single argument on some important framing issue.
 * Defaults**
 * Truth testing over comparing worlds
 * Competing interps over reasonability—I also have no idea how I’d evaluate a “gut check” reasonability brightline so please don’t ask me to gut check. I think I’ve had too many theory debates to automatically think any interp is unreasonable so a gut check would probably not work out in your favor.
 * Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality (just because dropping the arg would be dropping the entirety of the aff)
 * No RVIs (and I meets not triggering RVIs)
 * Metatheory before theory; T and theory on the same layer
 * Permissibility negates
 * I don't have a default side for presumption. In the absence of any offense left in the round and no presumption arguments made, I would vote for the person who had better strategy/technical skill


 * Other Notes**
 * I have a pretty low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments generally—“extend the conceded case offense” would be a sufficient extension for cold-conceded substance. However, I won't extend args for you so make sure the extensions exist.
 * I will vote on any theory shell but require theory violations to be verifiable. I’ve seen rounds where people lied about whether a position is broken or whether something was on the wiki. Just provide screenshots and make everyone’s lives easier.
 * Also, I won’t go to someone’s wiki to check a disclosure violation myself—that’d be like looking up a definition on T. If you want me to vote on something, do the work yourself.
 * Tell me what the highest layer of the flow is in your last speech and exactly what layer you want me to vote on.
 * Flash/email everything you read off your computer to your opponent! People often exclude analytics when they flash stuff and those are often hardest to flow.

I will try to assign speaks based solely on strategic vision, argument quality, and in-round composure. I will say clear/slow/loud as many times as needed. As long as you don’t totally ignore me when I call clear, I won’t dock speaks for clarity issues. I don’t disclose speaks. Things that will get you higher speaks: Things that will get you lower speaks:
 * Speaks**
 * Being funny (in a tasteful way—not just for the sake of it)
 * Being dominant in CX without bullying
 * Creative, well-constructed positions
 * Showing you care about the round/the activity
 * Clean ballot stories with lots of framing
 * Attempting to make the round educational if you're hitting someone with way less experience than you
 * Being unnecessarily rude/patronizing/condescending (especially when you’re much better than your opponent)
 * Lack of framing issues
 * Being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc—this is a given
 * Stealing prep time/delaying the round in any way
 * having gendered language in your pre-written spikes/shells/etc :((( if you're lucky enough to have old pre-written prep files you should take the time to go back and fix stuff!

Have fun—this your activity! Make it a good experience for everyone. I am happy to answer questions about my paradigm before the round or about my decision after the round.