Simonson,+Zach


 * Judge Philosophy**

simonson.zd@gmail.com
==I am a senior at the University of Northern Iowa where I have been a policy debater since 2009. Debates should be educational and I see my role as a judge as a facilitator of that education. I AM NOT AN INSTRUCTOR, and therefore try to keep my preferences out of that education as much as possible. Rather I see my responsibility as providing a good decision that accurately reflects the round I saw. This means that, as much as possible, I will try to allow the debaters convince me of how to evaluate the round. (Read: All types of debate, including performance and critical debate, can win my ballot.) But there are a few preferences that interfere with this goal, and it would be appropriate to list those below. ==

==Debate, especially in high school, should be an opportunity to engage with peers in friendly competition. Making friends in debates can be rewarding and important, and no one wants to be friends with a jerk. Debaters that cannot treat their opponents and judges with respect will have trouble earning high speaker points. Being passionate is cool, but don’t be a jackass. (I’ll add though that sometimes being a jackass suits the argument. In which case, do it. Some people deserve it.) ==

==I borrowed this from someone who borrowed it from someone else: "My ballot is always an endorsement of everyone's participation in the debate." ==

==I spent a year debating the more traditional variety of policy debate arguments on the policy circuit, but I found more success with the K and ran with that. I’m a 2A and that probably has a significant effect on how I view debates. I also rarely have an aff with a plan text, and when my aff has a plan text it’s almost never topical. That said, I’m open to all types of debate with only a few qualifications: ==

==Ks: Feel free to run them. With an alt, without an alt. Whatever. Specific links are absolutely essential to beating the permutation. DON’T GO FOR A K YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU THINK IT’S MY PREFERENCE. Debate how you debate best! ==

==Framework: On the aff or neg, I’m not going to be easily convinced that someone’s argument is totally without warrant because of some framework standard. Framework is about establishing an impact calculus. ==

==K Affs: I typically think that the aff gets to set the topic for debate, and I provide a lot of leniency there. If you’re looking for a judge that will dismiss the aff because it’s not a policy option, I’m not your judge. But I’m also not going to let the aff walk all over the negative. I’ve got to have an impact or a role of the ballot or some stasis point. ==

==Theory: I’m a 2A and I’m especially open to well-articulated debates about counterplan abuse and conditionality. The two most important elements of a good theory debate are the burden of the rejoinder, by which I mean answering your opponent’s offense, and providing good examples that articulate your argument. I tend to default to competing interpretations to evaluate theory, but you can try to convince me to go somewhere else. ==

==Topicality: It is usually evaluated on competing interpretations. I used to hate T debates. I realize now that I actually disliked bad T debates. There is a lot of value in having smart, detailed conversations about the nature of the topic. ==

==CPs: The counterplan is an opportunity cost disad to the affirmative. My default is that they should be textually and functionally competitive, but they don't have to be non-topical. I can be convinced to think otherwise. ==

==I’m not impressed by generic counterplans and a PLTX DA. It’s phenomenally boring debate. I’ll vote on it if you beat the theory and perm, but you will find that your rounds are more valuable when your run more specific arguments. ==

LD
==I was never an LD debater, and that probably impacts the way I see rounds. I find that the value and criterion debate is generally the most important aspect of the debate, because it establishes my impact calculus. ==

==Off-case positions: I used to try to assign preferences regarding evaluating this debate, but my LD friends tell me that I didn’t know what I was talking about anyway. Just tell me what you’re doing and I’ll play your game. ==

Topicality: It makes no sense in LD. If you think you can convince me that it does, go for it. But you probably won’t.
==Theory: Do not, I say again, DO NOT, try for the theory cheap-shot in LD or run theory arguments just to run them. If there isn’t some sort of egregious abuse, I will not hear them. I’m very tired of teams running theory arguments simply to catch a team that doesn’t know how to answer them. ==

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Quirky things:
==<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">- Think before you speak. Whether it’s sexist language or trivializing the Holocaust, debaters have a bad habit of saying some things that are totally unacceptable if they slow down and consider the words coming out of their mouths. Speaker points reflect these. ==

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">- I swear sometimes, I’m working on it and if I do it, I’m sorry.
==<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">- I like to type up a few pages worth of comments about the round in real time. I’ve found that my handwriting is too bad for ballot comments to be meaningful. I try to email them out to debaters after the round. If you don’t get them from me, let me know. I’ve saved them. My email: simonson.zd@gmail.com. ==

==<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">- I’m told that I communicate a lot things nonverbally. If I look queasy when you’re answering 50 State Fiat Bad it’s probably because I’m not into what you’re saying. If I smirk it’s because you’re being clever. That sort of thing. Pay attention and adapt. ==

==<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">- Give me feedback! If you think I made a mistake or if something about how I evaluated the round was helpful/hurtful let me know. I’m here to help you get better at debate, and I need feedback as much as you do. ==