Pogany,+Zach


 * Number of rounds judged on this topic (space):** 12


 * Debate experience/background:** I did four years of debate in high school. Two of those years were for Sioux Falls Lincoln and the final two I was at Sioux Falls Washington High school. I never debated on the national circuit and mostly stuck to the local South Dakota circuit with lends itself to a more traditional style of debate. Currently I am the director of Policy Debate at Sioux Falls Washington High School in South Dakota.


 * General paradigm/philosophy:** I consider my self tabula rasa. I will vote any way you tell me to as long as you are persuasive. I really like to see very articulate, persuasive debates because I feel that the element of persuasion has been lost to the debate community to some extent. With that said, here are some specifics:


 * Speed**: I am okay with speed. On a scale of 1-10 I consider myself about an 8. However, you do need to be clear to some extent.


 * Topicality:** As a general rule, I default to a framework of competing interpretations. The debate should focus on how both sides interpret the topic/definition and present me with reasons as to why your interpretation is best for debate. Also, get creative with T debate. I like to see a really well researched definition and well worded interpretation, not just some terrible camp file or a T file from your A team's files that you don't understand. Please make the use of this argument strategic and not just a useless time-suck that does nothing for you in the round.


 * DAs:** I absolutely love disad debate. I really look for unique, interesting, and well researched scenarios. Your senario should articulate solid internal links and impacts as well as paint a good picture for me at the end of the round. Please please please, if you are going for this, impact calc is a must. This should be the only thing you discuss in the 2NR. Additionally, I really don't like to see generics, they generally don't lend themselves to good debate.


 * CPs:** Along with disads, I love to see great counterplan debate. This is the bread and butter strategy for the neg. A well articulated disad/CP combo is the best strategy a neg team can have. I'm not too huge a fan of PICs but I'm not totally opposed to them.


 * Kritiks:** I have become way more accepting of this argument over the years. I will say this first, if you do not understand the literature behind the K you are running, then don't run it in front of me. I may not know or understand the specific author or the philosophy very well, but it is really easy to tell if you don't either. If you are going to run a K you need to have spent a considerable amount of time reading the literature and really understand the philosophy behind the criticism. Additionally, I need to see well articulated alt and how that alt functions in whatever world you present post-kritik. This is where I feel K debate loses some substance is with a bad alt. With that said, good K debate is an absolute joy and fascinating to watch.


 * Theory:** I really don't like these types of debate. Most of the time, theory debate is really unorganized and not fleshed out very well during the course of the debate. However, I do feel that there are instance where it is warranted. On these debates I generally default to rejecting the argument and not the team unless there is a clear reason within the argument as to why I should act differently.


 * Non-Traditional/Performance debate:** While I do agree with a lot of the arguments presented (race criticism etc.), I don't have a lot of experience with these types of debate nor do I necessarily feel that how debate is handled now is necessarily bad. I agree that debate is probably one of the best forums to discuss these issues in and some actual change can come about from these debates. I don't know what else to say here so pref me at your own risk if this is your strat!

If you have any other questions feel free to ask. Good luck in your rounds! (updated 10/25/11)