Babat,+Zach

** Short Form ** ** About me: ** Senior at University School of Nashville and incoming freshman to Williams College in the fall. 4 years of policy debate, debated this year's topic. I spent most of my time as 2A but also have been 2N for an appreciable amount of time. ** Speech Docs: ** Yes, please. Email chain is most preferable, zacharybabat17@email.usn.org ** Ultra-Fast Version: ** ** Long Form ** ** General Predispositions: ** ** Conducting Rounds: ** ** Condo/Theory: ** ** Counterplans: **Often my go-to, but I also am weary of how they can be abused. ** Disadvantages: ** Good case vs. DA debate is always welcome.  **Kritiks:** Are either the coolest thing ever or the worst thing ever. ** Topicality: ** It exists.  **Kritikal/Unusual Affs:** I'm also gonna quote Colin Kolodziej on this one, too, because he kills it here as well.  **Speaker Points:** I am a slave to statistical analysis. Nate Silver is a wizard. I have slightly modified the following point scale, which comes from The 3NR's statistical analysis of the 2015-2016 season, found here: https://the3nr.com/2016/04/15/an-updated-speaker-point-scale-based-on-2015-2016-results/#more-3216
 *  **Everything below is up for debate.** All the long-form stuff can totally be swayed if you provide decent warrants, I'm just letting you know my dispositions.
 *  **Read what you're comfortable with**. If you read what's your turf, you're far more likely to make intelligent analytics and tell clear stories that engage with what's happened in the round, and that makes me more likely to vote for you. I don't have any dispositions so severely inhibiting you can't win the round, though I do have some dispositions that are outlined below.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Be respectful.** "We must love each other or die" -jon sharp
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** Comparative analysis good, ships passing in night bad. **
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** I pay attention to CX. **
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Have fun.** It's corny. Yes. But the fact of the matter is, when the debaters are having a good time, screwing around a bit, and enjoying themselves, I enjoy myself, too. Debate should be an enjoyable place while still being competitive, making it a space like that will, bare minimum, help your speaks.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Clash is vital.** The worst debates are when both sides are like two ships passing in the night. I despise them. Please don't make me sit through 2 hours of teams yelling and pretending the other team's yelling didn't happen. Engaging with what's happening in the round and not reading straight down blocks is a key part of winning the round.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Specificity rocks.** The more specific your arguments are to everything else happening in the round, the more impressive and persuasive. The converse goes for generics.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** Clarity over speed. ** Ultimately, I judge the round based off the flow I have in front of me, meaning it is in your best interest to ensure I know what you're saying. I'll be sympathetic to the other team if you mumble argument and call them dropped.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** Truth and tech both matter. ** There needs to be some level of tech in order to ensure that I don't do work for you. But also, smart arguments, even if not carded, will outweigh sheer garbage.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Blippy catchphrases are not arguments.** I will not vote on your three-word "fiat is illusory" argument in the block when you try to give a whole 2NR on how the aff dropped it later. Ditto for the aff on their equivalents.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** I listen to cross-ex. ** Use it wisely.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** Don't be a prick. ** Don't get me wrong, debates with a little heat, a little fun intensity between teams are always fun. Just make sure not to cross that unspoken line. This includes being a prick to your partner.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Don't be a moron.** Racism good etc. is terrible. I will very probably vote against you, tank your speaks, and tell your story at dinner that night.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** I don't take prep for emailing/flashing. ** That said, if things get ridiculous, I'll let you know that prep is running. I'm a high schooler, my political capital to hold up a tournament is low.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** I'll yell "clear" twice before docking speaks. **
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Tag-team cross-ex is fine.** Steamrolling your partner into submission because you find them incompetent is not. Been there, done that.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Ethics violations are serious**. They can end debate careers or worse. I don't like guaranteeing a penalty because that type of monolithic severity is what's wrong with the justice system, I shall deal with cases as they arise. If you call them, have evidence. If unsure, err on the side of caution.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Don't steal prep.** I will notice.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **BE CLEAR.** I mean really be clear here. Theory is all analytics, so it's a nightmare to resolve unless I have a decent idea
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** 2 conditional off-case is my default. **But it's condo, so pretty much anything goes. If the aff points out in-round abuse, that story is highly persuasive, even in rounds with less than 2 condo advocacies.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **In-round abuse is key.** This isn't applicable to all theory arguments, but demonstrating in-round abuse, where fitting, is critical to getting me to really care about your interpretation.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **I was a 2A and 2N.** I know how much it sucks to be staring down 4 CPs that are all super contrived and garbage. I also know what it's like to be staring down a plan so amorphous and shifty it's hard to generate offense. Accordingly, I can empathize with both sides.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** Neg: **Your CP should have specific solvency, especially for multiplank CPs. Consult CPs, Plan-Plus CPs, and other CPs that are evidently generic are always a bit suspect. But specific PICs, Agent CPs, etc. are all good. This is a theme, but the key is ensuring your CP strat is specific and has the requisite solvency evidence. Specifically describing how your solvency addresses the aff is a big plus.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** Aff: ** As a former 2A who used to run cheat-y CPs, I know the horror well and am friendly to theory arguments that call out the CP for in-round abuse. Read my advice to the neg above to inform your theory strat.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **General:** If the neg wins that the CP solves case, it's always an uphill battle for the aff. I find "only risk of the DA" a highly persuasive neg argument in those cases. Counterplans linking to the net benefit is also a big flaw that many fail to catch.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Neg:** Logical turn analysis and well-told, specific stories of how the DA would go down are my favorite.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** Aff: ** Thumpers/"this should have happened" arguments and brilliant no-link distinctions are also really cool.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **General:** I find that this if often where really smart, devastating analytics happen. Especially if you bring in outside knowledge of the real world. Assessing magnitude of things that aren't the impact (like analyzing the magnitude of the link) is great.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Spreading straight through your K blocks in hopes your inexperienced competition will drop them is not persuasive and looks bad.** I expect this to be an important thing to note in the novice rounds I'll be judging.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Engage with the other team's arguments.** I don't care how good your file made over 3 years running is. It will not be enough to engage with what's happening in the round well. This is basically a reiteration of my first point.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Preferences:** I'm a big fan of kritiks that pick out the language and representations of the 1AC and fit them into a broader narrative. Generally, I'd like to think I'm pretty solid hearing Cap, Security, Antiblackness, Foucault, Agamben, Schlag, etc. I'm a bit shakier when it comes to other, more high-theory style kritiks *cough* Baudrillard* cough, especially the way they're run these days. Overall, though, I'd like to think that I can hear any kritik if you do the proper work on it articulated below.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** What I need to vote on a K: **A specific link story indicting how the 1AC feeds into a broader system that is bad, an explanation of alt solvency, clear analysis contextualized to the aff.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Neg:** I am highly persuaded by specific lines pulled from the 1AC/specific references to CX, turns case analysis (although you'll probably need external impacts), serial policy failure (if well explained), and explaining the kritik in an intuitive fashion. If you give your links awesome and memorable names, you are a good person. Explaining the phenomena of the 1AC through the lens of your kritik, that is also awesome.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** Aff :** I am persuaded by the perm and turns analysis. In addition, I love arguments that point out how the aff is true, and refers to empirical, real-world phenomena that cannot be explained through another lens.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Framework:** Generally kinda meh. Often, these are extremely self-serving. I'm likely to prefer whichever team finds the most reasonable interpretation that allows for the mutual coexistence of the aff and the kritik. Because those are both good things we should have in rounds.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **General:** I was never much of a fan of topicality. I didn't get into this activity to hear semantic arguments. That said, with maturity, I have come to recognize its necessity in debate, especially on topics this broad.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **I default to reasonability.** That doesn't mean that I won't vote on topicality, I will easily swing around to competing interpretations because I don't like being that vague. But if the debate is a wash and reasonability's on my flow and the aff seems like a not psychotic interpretation of the topic, I'll probably tip towards the reasonable interpretation.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> **Neg/Aff:** Caselists are potent. Show me how garbage the topic is under their interpretation, and how great it is under yours. Also, I find discussion of why I should prefer one side's authors over another to be persuasive, if you can tell me why I should prefer it in a way that actually matters.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">** Misc: **I'm gonna quote my mentor Colin Kolodziej on this one because he nails it. "Good neg teams will provide a comparative description of the aff and neg ground under their interpretation and why those are good for debate and why the counterinterpretation is worse for debate based on a similar description. Good aff teams will explain why the aff under their interpretation are necessary to good debate and why they provide sufficient neg ground for the other team or are sufficiently limiting."
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">I generally think that defending a plan is good, but will do my best not to let that influence my decision and evaluate framework debates in term of who won the arguments in the debate. Neg teams should go for fairness and less of the silly Steinberg and Freeley deliberation key solve extinction impacts because I think the link threshold for solving portable skills is absurdly low. Aff teams should explain why their type of debate is better and cannot be solved by the neg’s interpretation and why the neg has sufficient ground under their interpretation. I think neg teams should read cps or ks against these affs or impact turn because more often than not that is the more strategic option. But if going for T is your thing, more power to you. If you are a K aff that defends a plan, then awesome.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">29.5-30.0 — top speaker
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">29.1-29.5 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">28.8-29.0 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">28.6-28.7 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">28.4-28.5 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">28.0-28.3 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">27.5-27.9 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.
 * <span style="font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;">0-27.5 — Something is wrong, I will explain it to you.