Prax,+Zachary

I am the Director of Forensics at the University School (FL). Prior to this, I have coached in Minnesota (specifically, Apple Valley and Chanhassen High Schools).

It's hard to encapsulate a paradigm in just a short amount of space. If you are still in doubt, please, feel free to ask any specific questions you need to ask prior to the round starting.

I think I can firmly categorize myself as a “standards judge”. This means that I really need to hear some competing analysis on which standard is better, why I should use it, etc. Too often, it seems like lots of standards debate takes the form of “my opponent's standard is x, but s/he does not meet because y”. I find this ineffective; I'd really rather hear “my opponent's standard x is not sensical to weigh the round because y”. If you can weigh and tell me why your standard is more important, please do so. I really don't spend a whole lot of time on value analysis unless it's involving some huge contrast in what the value should be. If I'm listening to justice vs just social order, I'm really not interested in listening to much of a value debate.

Then, you need to explicitly impact to this standard. If you win the standard, this ought to be relatively easy to do. If you don't, you still can win by impacting to your opponent's. Whatever you do, you need to be impacting TO THE STANDARD though. Too many times there are smatterings of arguments that don't at all deal with either standard. When both sides give me this without impacting at all to either standard, I intervene and pick the easiest argument to vote on. I definitely do not like to do that, and speaker points will very likely reflect that. I won't intervene unless I have to, and not explicitly impacting to a standard will do that.

I really like it when people debate the resolution. With topic-specific evidence. I'm certainly willing to listen to other stuff, but again, I do firmly categorize myself as a standards judge.

On to some other stuff:

Theory: there absolutely comes a time when it needs to be used as a defensive mechanism. Let's face it, some positions are just downright abusive. I just prefer theory be used as a shield, and not a sword. I'll try to evaluate it all the best I can, but when I'm dealing with 6+ shells and no one's giving me some prioritization (i.e., which shell am I looking to first, etc) I get confused. But bottom line - I'll certainly listen to theory, but only if it's a complete argument (ie interp, violation, standards, voters). I am not quick to pull the trigger on theory, so if you want to win with it, you need to overwhelmingly win the argument.

CP's are fine...and honestly, I do like them as a Neg strategy. I'd spend more than a blip explaining why it's competitive...I feel like a lot of the counterplans I hear nowadays are pretty easily permable. I'm not much inclined to reject certain argument structures/types simply because I don't like them. I'm not exceptionally well-versed in critical theory. I won't vote against it because I don't like it, but I will vote against it because I don't understand it. This means if you choose to take a risk and run critical arguments in front of me, you need to be very, very explanatory. Even then, I make no guarantees to my understanding it :)

Speed: I can handle it for the most part. However, when I say “speed okay”, I think too many people take it as “speed, blippy arguments, and extreme lack of clarity okay”. If you are clear, I am pretty good with speed. If you aren't, you seriously should consider going slow for me. If I am by myself judging (ie some prelim round, not on a panel) I'll yell clear one or twice. More than that, I'll get irritated. Please don't use speed to increase the amount of bad arguments. A slower debater that is making high-quality arguments will always beat a fast debater making a storm of bad arguments. So, when I'm saying “speed okay”, you also don't need to read “speed preferred”; going slowly and making good, well-reasoned arguments is more than okay with me (and in fact, often preferred).

Other: I like it when people are funny. C-X is a good time for that. Especially when it is two people that know each other and are having a good time in a round while still being competitive. I don't like it when people are rude, demeaning, or altogether obnoxious. Seriously, how many judges have said to you, “I don't really like it when people are funny, but there's nothing I love more than a jerk”?

Again, please ask me any and all questions you might have before the round. I'll be more than happy to answer.