Hills,+Zachary

Zachary Hills
3 years of high school debate at Blue Valley West High School in Overland Park, KS Freshman debater at the University of Kansas

I debated three years in high school. My senior year I traveled to TOC bid tournaments and biggest successes were breaks at the Iowa Caucus and KCKCC. Placed in two 2-Speaker Kansas state tournaments. I now debate for the University of Kansas. I have no preference for any argument and have used all styles of argumentation in my career although more frequently I have been policy oriented. I love all debates that are well debated.
 * Introduction:**

Yes. I must hear words though. Analysis should be very clear in the rebuttals.
 * Speed:**

I am not opposed to hearing any procedural argument at all. If it is stupid, I need to hear why. You don’t need evidence for an interpretation. No evidence needs to be impacted out: unpredictable, limits, etc. The team that does the most analysis of limits and ground will probably win the debate. I really like topicality when it is well analyzed. Most of the T debate should be on the standards.
 * Procedurals:**

I like them. I find well explained internal link/impact arguments really persuasive. “DA takes out solvency” and “Turns case” type arguments are awesome. In order to win, a disadvantage needs to be accompanied by one of two things though: 1) A very good defense of the squo. 2) A reasonable risk of CP solvency.
 * Disadvantages:**

Any theory is fine. I just need a good reason to reject the argument or team and a dropped "voter" is not necessarily a win. I vote on condo but my preference is unlimited conditonal advocacies. I have no problem with a DA/20 CPs 1NC. But if the aff wins condo’s a voter they win my ballot. No solvency advocate is a solvency argument. I find predictability arguments annoying but again, I will vote on them.
 * Counterplans:**

Framework will make me sad. Topicality will make me happy. I believe that my vote is an expression of what is the best action. An advocacy statement that is simply a thought process is an action to me. If it is proven more desirable than the alternative, it will probably get my vote. I am not familiar with counterfactuals and not biased one way or another towards them yet.
 * Kritiks-Aff/Neg:**

I am not likely to vote on four words (i.e. “fiat solves the link”) and I give leniancy to the team that dropped an argument if more analysis is done by the other team in their next speech. Dropped arguments are true arguments—but keep in mind that I define an argument as something that has been explained well to me.
 * Dropped arguments:**

I am assigning speaker points to the quality of your speeches. That means your speaker points are a reflection of the content of the 19 minutes you spoke. Nothing else. I do not dock speaks for rudeness however keep in mind that in the close debates that I can well justify either way… you probably don’t want to be the team I hate. Here are things that will make me hate you: 1) Mean spirited personal attacks 2) Racist comments 3) Sexist comments 4) A FALSE sense of cockiness. You can be rude if you deserve to be pissed off. But you have to earn it.
 * Speaks:**

If you get up please start speaking. I get annoyed if you make me watch your stupid little finger slowly move on the trackpad to look like you are just changing your screen layout. Saving is not prep.
 * Prep:**

Debate the best. Win your argument. Prove a decision for you is best. You are welcome to fight with my decision afterwards and I am not perfect. But odds are I will make sense.
 * Conclusion:**