Zehner,+Ryan

Ryan Zehner Affiliations: St. Joseph’s Prep, Philadelphia, PA, and La Salle College High School, Wyndmoor, PA I debated LD for St. Joseph’s Prep from 2006 to 2008. I mostly competed locally but have some circuit experience. I judge extremely infrequently so if I’m at a tournament, it’s definitely my first one on the current topic and probably my first in several months. I’ve been judging and coaching for 2 years. I think I’m a pretty normal circuit-type judge. I don’t have very strong stylistic preferences, I will vote where you tell me to, and I try to be open minded about arguments and positions. Obviously, though, I do have some issues and biases. Speed: Doesn’t bother me at all in theory, but it’s not like I practice flowing in my spare time. Just be reasonable about it and there shouldn’t be any problems. I’m fine with yelling “clear” if you want me to. I will also probably look very confused if I can’t follow you. One specific thing I don’t like is people who start their speeches really fast. It’s definitely to your advantage, if you’re going to read quickly, to build up to your speed over the first few sentences. It’s a lot easier to flow this way. Topicality: I default competing interps. With regards to theory in general: I don’t have a problem with it, but I’m inexperienced. In practice, this will probably mean that you have to be really clear with warrants, violations, etc. Don’t assume I’ve already heard your arguments a million times. ALSO: I prefer not to vote on ambiguous in-round “abuse.” I’m more than willing to accept one interp over another, but if you want me to sign the ballot based on the abuse you’ve taken, the abuse should have been serious. Ks: Fine in principle but I’m not really big into philosophy generally and I will hold philosophical warrants to high standards. Obviously many philosophical arguments have merit, and obviously many of these are applicable to LD. But many cases that I’ve seen skimp on explaining their authors’ warrants and rely on seeming smart and cool. Don’t do this. Also I’m not impressed by people who use absurd language to needlessly complicate their arguments. Performances/Micropolitics: Don’t really like these arguments, though I will of course vote for them if you win the warrants. Speaks: I try to average a 27 to a 28. If you want to get a 30, I prefer lots of strong warrants and also I like cool/strategic frameworks with empirical impacts. My bias is towards scientific and social-science arguments, usually drawn from economics/game theory/whatever. If you run these arguments I will like you. Miscellaneous: I am confidently that I am reasonably well educated and informed. I won’t vote for an argument that I don’t understand or that I am certain is empirically false. If your argument merely seems extremely improbable to me, I will vote for it if you win it but I will give you lower speaks. Also when I was debating, people liked to run a lot of “a priori” arguments that were usually crappy. I don’t know if people still do this, but in general I’m skeptical of arguments that supposedly can’t be weighed against other arguments. I give oral critiques and don’t write much on the ballot. I often won’t have a timer and I like funny people who don’t take themselves too seriously. If you have any specific questions, I’d be more than happy to address them, just ask.