Zhou,+Paul

= = Can’t judge: Lexington, Stuyvesant

Background: I debated for four years at Lexington High School in Massachusetts. I debated mostly on the national circuit. I used to coach Stuyvesant LD.

I haven't judged much this year and I was never a great flower to begin with. Slow down for tags/authors/interps/advocacy texts, pause between arguments, avoid blips, and ease into your top speed.
 * Speed**

I think part of what makes debate great is its incredible openness. Given that fact I am fine with speed, theory, policy-style argumentation, dense framework arguments, kritiks, micropolitical arguments, performance, a prioris/prestandard arguments, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Debate is your game. Play it how you want to.
 * Content**

The one exception is that I won't vote on anything I find patently offensive. So far I've been fortunate enough to have never come across an argument that crosses that threshold for me. Don't be the first.

Big picture is crucial; you can have a thousand dropped arguments on the line by line but you will still lose if your opponent does better argument interaction. Your rebuttals need to RESOLVE arguments, not just extend them. Give me a metric for how I ought to choose between competing claims. Ultimately, dedicating time towards argument resolution and development will carry you much further in front of me than banking on the strength of technical concessions.
 * Form**

On a related note, I think that debaters usually go for too much. I find the most strategic speeches to be those that hone in on a few key issues. When in doubt, go for less offense with more weighing as opposed to more offense with less weighing. If there is one thing that consistently loses my ballot it is going for three or four arguments on the line by line without weighing instead of picking one or two and sitting down on them with weighing and interaction. This also applies to outs. Ideally, debaters should collapse to a single path to the ballot and conclusively win it.

While I will try to be non-interventionist, I do have a threshold for what counts as an argument. I will not vote on words that I do not see as rising to the level of an argument, even if those words are conceded. An argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact. Those three components must be logically related in a way I understand.

I will try to average a 28. A 30 requires gumption.
 * Speaks**