Zucker,+James

James Zucker Loyola High School Debate Coach jzucker@loyolahs.edu

Judging Paradigm: Lincoln-Douglass

Debate Experience and Philosophy

I am a Debate Coach at Loyola High School where I have coached for 8 years as both Head Coach and Assistant. I have judged and coached LD and Policy for both local and national circuit levels. I see Debate as a game of strategic argumentation. So, all arguments are acceptable as long as they are well impacted and given clear functional analysis. It doesn’t hurt that Debate tournaments are a great place for students to meet future girlfriends/boyfriends.

Criteria for Judging

1. I see Lincoln-Douglass as primarily a debate over values and their application to current social issues and conflicts. So, the individual to win or hold the strongest position on the values question and its application (criteria) will hold the advantage in the debate. I consider myself a Comparative Worlds judge. For me, this means that I do not default to the Negative position if the Affirmative does not prove the resolution to be true. Rather, I look to see who offers the more preferable case on the resolution as either correct or incorrect. However, I am open to theory debates that would challenge this position within the round based upon a contest over frameworks.

2. Frameworks provide debaters with an advantage of ground in the debate. However, a debater must establish offense from the framework through truth testing or comparing impacts to win the ballot.

3. While I do believe that there are basic rules to the fairness of a debate, I see the overall purpose as a rhetorical game teaching students how to view and argue multiple sides of an argument. So, I am open to any issue that a Debater wants to raise such as Kritiks or Abuse Theory.

4. I am fine with fast debates. However, it is up to the debater to articulate their positions. So, please make sure to be clear on the key voters in the round and on the strategy you want me to vote upon. This needs to be articulated clearly in the final rebuttal speeches.

Judging Paradigm: Policy Debate

Criteria for Judging

1. I see Policy as a debate over values, application to current social issues, and a weighing of the impacts of government policies. So, my view on Policy debates is very open for a wide area of discussion.

2. My overall judging criteria for a policy debate is to look at how the plan and its advantages compare to the Negative's testing of the Affirmative position. So, I am open to evaluating multiple off case testings of the Affirmative position.

3. While I do believe that there are basic rules to the fairness of a debate, I see the overall purpose as a rhetorical game teaching students how to view and argue multiple sides of an argument. So, I am open to any issue that a Debater wants to raise such as Kritiks, Topicality or Abuse Theory.

4. I am fine with fast debates. However, it is up to the debater to articulate their positions. So, please make sure to be clear on the key voters in the round and on the strategy you want me to vote upon. This needs to be articulated clearly in the final rebuttal speeches.