Zimmer,Alissa

I’m a former debater from Westfield High School in Houston, Texas. Most of my experience is in PF with LD/StuCo as runner-ups. I’m currently a freshman at Northeastern University majoring in Environmental Studies and Political Science.

First and foremost, I have no problem with speed as long as you maintain clarity. Also, a qualm of mine is when debaters stay seated while they are speaking- unless you have a very good reason not to, please stand up. I’m really iffy on flashing and all of these other relatively new debate practices that I was never exposed too much to on my circuit, but as long as both teams in the round are comfortable with these things, I’ll take it.

I’m definitely a big picture judge as opposed to a line by line judge. Of course I’ll be flowing thoroughly and you should always point out drops, but be aware that I won’t vote for the team that has the least drops by default or anything like that. Impacts (side note: turns are always fun and always appreciated) and issue prioritizations are super important, impact calc is a tool you need under your belt. I’m more persuaded by effective argumentation and rationalization than by having tons of evidence thrown at me.

I’m pretty well-read on various philosophers and philosophies and really appreciate a little bit of obscurity and risk taking with values and criterion (with concise and effective explanations always) but I definitely won’t count it against you if you use morality or justice as a value. Not a huuuuuuge fan of morality in specific, I prefer if a specific moral code is chosen, but I try to be as open as possible and if you can convince me otherwise, kudos. If you value morality or justice, DON’T say that it is implied in the resolution and leave your justification at that.

I don’t really have any pet peeves about specific argument types (feel free to be traditional, use theory, whatever) but make sure jargon doesn't become a crutch for you to avoid actual debate- any type of argument can be convincing if executed tactfully. Use your strengths! As long as argumentation is solid and not abusive, it’s okay in my book. I’ll buy observations as long as they’re grounded in the real world and not abusive as well. I love a good framework debate and if you're comfortable bringing in Ks and the like, go for it.

You should all know by now not to be rude or disrespectful in a debate round, abuse prep time, and so on so forth.

I try to judge as objectively as possible but remember that the more gaps you leave in your case, the more space you are opening up for my subjectivity.