Dresher,+Zach

I debated LD for four years in high school, and graduated in 2011. I'm a graduate of American University, with two undergraduate degrees, in political science and public communication. I am the head coach for C&T Technology Academy.

I'm fairly comfortable with any sorts of argument you want to make, but I view debate as an exercise in communication first, meaning that whatever arguments you choose to make need to be explained clearly, with specific warrants and impacts established __upon first reading__. In other words, if you want me to evaluate something, I need to know exactly what support exists for the claim you're making, whether that's from a card, a line of logical reasoning, or whatever, and what about that argument specifically matters in the grand scope of the debate. Outside of that, my specific preferences are as follows:

Framework: It's extremely important that you give me a way to evaluate the round. I typically default to a Value Premise/Criterion structure, as that's generally what's most commonly accepted, but I'm perfectly willing to listen to any sort of framework as long as you give me a reason why it is the best way for me to evaluate the round. Any argument that you expect me to vote off MUST link to whatever the standard ends up being, or I won't do it. I'm totally fine with either debater kicking their value structure and linking to their opponents, at any point during the debate, but any turns should still be answered if they remain relevant.

Case-level arguments: Like I mentioned before, I'm looking for warrants and impacts, with any argument you make. I'm cool with listening to any sort of arguments, as long as you show me how they link to the resolution, and uphold your side effectively.
 * A note on warrants. If you're citing some "expert" opinion, make sure you have their line of reasoning, or statistics if applicable, available in the card. In other words, don't just read an author's conclusion and assume it is fact because they said so. Just because a card says it does NOT make it true. Likewise, a card is not always necessary for an argument to be evaluated, provided a clear line of logical reasoning is established.

Extensions/Voting Issues: These are important. Make sure anything you need to extend is done so at your first available opportunity, and continually throughout the round. I'm a fan of voting issues in your last speech (whether during or at the end doesn't matter), and please give me with each the warrant, impact, and link to the chosen standard for the round.

Speed: Is fine to a point, but clarity ought to be your main focus. That being said, if your whole goal is to spread out 11 contentions with insufficient warrants or analysis, I'm not going to be happy with you, I will hold it against you, and you will most likely not get my ballot. Go at a pace that allows you to make the best arguments you can- if that means speaking faster to cover more analysis, go for it, but if it's purely to gain a time-skewed advantage over an opponent, I'll just get annoyed with you, and this will be reflected in your speaker points, as well as the fact that you will probably lose the round. If you were to be on a scale from 1-10, with 1 being a parent who had never judged before and 10 being the TOC, I prefer speeds around a 6, but I can handle up to an 8. If you are loudly tapping your foot while you speak (as in, as loud as your voice), or you are legitimately screaming at me, I will most likely make fun of you on the ballot, because you are acting ridiculous.

I don't believe in calling for "clear" in a round, because as debate is an activity in presentation, you ought to be evaluated on the presentation you choose to make, and I've already made my desire for clarity explicitly stated in this paradigm. If you see me not typing/writing something down, or looking like I can't keep up, chances are that you're going too fast. I'll make it obvious.

Kritiks/Plans/Alternative Debate Styles: All of these are fine, so long as you explain to me clearly why your interpretation of the round ought to be the one I have as well.

Theory: Not my favorite strategy, but if abuse has taken place, then you have every right to make a theory argument, and I will evaluate it as a component in the round. I am also definitely responsive to theory against Kritiks/Plans/etc, and will absolutely vote off it and evaluate it before the case-level arguments if not adequately responded to. In any case, I'm not a big fan of pre-emptive theory arguments in the AC, and I won't vote off a "presume aff" argument, so don't waste your time making it.

One final note: I am a coach currently, and that does mean that I'll generally have a pretty solid foundation of knowledge on the current resolution. It also means that I'll probably have read many of the same cards that you have in your case, and I will know if you are deliberately misquoting or falsifying evidence. That is something I ABSOLUTELY will not tolerate, and if I believe this has been an issue in the round, I will have no hesitation in asking you to see the actual source that you are quoting after the culmination of the debate, before I make my decision. If you are able to provide it, and it was accurately quoted or portrayed, I will apologize and it will be a non-issue in my decision, but if either you are unable to provide it, or it clearly does not say what you claim it does, I will immediately drop you, give you the lowest possible speaker points allowed, and alert the tab room requesting that they take appropriate action, which may result in you being dropped from the tournament. I have students competing in every tournament I attend, and it is absolutely unfair to them, or any other debater, to allow someone to get away with making up evidence. Hopefully this isn't ever an issue, but I wanted to make my policy absolutely clear.