Feinberg,+Zachary

I'd like to start by saying in general I enjoy really technical debates. I feel like this is true of most judges, but if I'm going to see an argument I want to see an argument that really applies to that specific aff. I'm able to evaluate a very technical debate, including and especially framework, which I'll get to later. I like to believe that I go into the round as a tabula rasa judge, but the truth is most judges aren't able to do that entirely. That being said, because of the way I debated, //any debaters who wish to speak about sexism, racism, heteronormativity, ableism and any other form of prejudice WILL have a safe space to talk about it if I am present.//

__K Affs__
I debated multiple K affs during my high school career from feminism to Baudrillard to Deleuze and Guattari. That being said I am going to hold any critical affirmatives to the highest standard of framework. The job of your aff should be first and foremost to prove why you're more important than talking about the resolution itself. Only if you can convince me that you are will I evaluate your aff on the substantive level.

__Theory__
I love conditionality debates and theory debates in general. That being said, theory should be a __debate,__ not reading your teams' theory blocks back and forth at me. Get clash going and actually answer their arguments. I will default neg unless proven to me that they are abusive in some way, and potential abuse is a strong voter to me //if you can prove their potential abuse//. All theory should start from the standpoint that the debate world would be a better space if I vote the neg down on theory, speak about it that way.

__Topicality__
I put this first for a reason, it is in fact first. I come into the round assuming that if your aff isn't topical we can't have a discussion on it and therefore should be voted against. As I said above, you can in fact prove to me that your aff is valuable despite not being resolution, or you can prove to me that your topical. I will default to competing interpretations unless it is proven to me that reasonability is preferable.

__Disads__
I mean, they're disads... they do stuff. Outweigh and turn the case and stuff, make sure you did good and thorough analysis on it.

__Counterplans__
My favorite argument is a well run and __specific__ counterplan. Counterplans need to be able to solve at least a part of the aff, otherwise we get into a very large area of abusiveness. Multi-plank counterplans I generally consider all or nothing unless otherwise stated. I question internal net benefits a lot though considering they don't really challenge the affirmative, but of course I'll vote on them.

__Word PICs__
I put this separate from the counterplans because they really are a separate subject entirely. To be honest I am very partial to words PICs because I love speaking about language and its impact on the way that we speak and act. My partner and I even ran "the" PIC for a while, but please only run a word PIC if you know what you're talking about.

__Kritiks__
I will listen to anything you have to say. That being said I do think that debating framework is important in what we should be discussing in the round. I default to being a logical policymaker unless otherwise stated.