Zhou,+Jimmy

Jimmy Z.

Polytechnic School ‘14 Stanford University ‘18 Last Updated: September 2014


 * Notes:** Looking at me in the middle of a round will usually give you a sense of how I feel the round is going or how I feel about the answer you are giving. My facial expressions can signal to you how you should approach the round. I view argumentation over evidence, and I will "intervene" on deciding how to interp your evidence if you do not explain it well. (i.e. I will still read a link to the K if its dropped if you cannot articulate it to determine whether there is a link). If you can explain the evidence and how you want to spin a link out of it, then that's fine. Extrapolation is ok. It's just that there are many rounds where poor evidence will lead to an incomprehensible explanation (because frankly, it's not in the card) so that's why I had to put this in.


 * Background:** I debated all four years in high school in both LD and policy. This is mainly due to the fact that I debated at a small school where partnerships and schedules were not always consistent (LD=maverick policy). I didn’t really compete on the national circuit as much as I would have liked to, but I have done so in both LD and policy.


 * General:** I’m ok with most arguments in either policy or LD. I do come from a policy background, so I do prefer plans, DAs, CPs, etc. in LD over like meta-ethical framework heavy cases, but I will vote on either.


 * T and Theory:** I actually enjoy watching these debates when the debater can have specific interpretations (i.e. more than one conditional CP bad vs. all condo bad). For most areas of theory, there is a good middle ground so wording of your interpretation is pretty important. I default to competing interpretations on T. I also lean towards condo good (unless it’s like something absurd like seven conditional CPs), but I can be swayed, especially in LD.


 * CPs/DAs:** These are good, but hopefully your link chains aren’t too crazy and your solvency advocates are somewhat qualified. I do believe in terminal defense, but that claim should be made in round with some warrants.


 * Ks:** Have a very clear thesis with these. Most Ks don’t have to be very complicated, but they do have a lot of jargon, and I’m not a fan of jargon. You shouldn’t assume I know what a master signifier is or what the discourse of the hysteric means as an alternative. If your opponent is confused and does not cover the K well, there is a higher standard on you to explain the K because 1) I could be confused and 2) you probably will have the time to make these explanations since most of their answers are not responsive.


 * Non-traditional arguments:** Not very familiar with these, but I do understand if you tell me what the role of the ballot is and the framework on how I should decide who best meets the ROB and how your cases does that, then I will most likely vote for you.


 * Speaker Points:** I usually give relatively high speaker points (28-29), but I do base my speaker points on the pool at the tournament. Good strategic decisions will earn you a lot in my book.


 * Evidence:** I do call for it, be prepared for that. You can give me a copy of your speech to follow along. It gives you a bit more wiggle room in terms of speed and clarity, but you don't have to do this at all. I do believe you should flash speeches to your opponents though.


 * Any other questions, just ask.**