Zausen,+Leo

2017 note, compressed and condensed for your pleasure: I coach k teams and pay rent through "education" (the current resolution)

2016: hi - i am a graduate student studying media and culture coaching brooklyn technical high school (brooklyn, ny) and have previously coached mcdowell high school (erie, pa) and would like to be added to email chains via lzausen @ gmail

For me comprehension is a precondition to understanding. overviews, roll of ballots, rigorous/textual argumentation, etc. are all aesthetic choices valued highly. use the above words as stylistic assessments for my flow. In my opinion, the judge's roll is to facilitate; best case scenario, you clearly articulate an interpretation of what the round is, and I vote. I (typically) prefer critical interrogation with the resolution and present day state of affairs through either literature or scholarship than mirroring the debates of our current representatives, marginal practices of the state, repetitions of inequality. But, I hold performative affirmatives to the same degree as state action, and thus all the rhetorical, performative, logical turns are signs of misreading, and are considerably more noticeable to me with the critical team. Even if I tend to vote for k / critical argumentation, I will similarly vote for nuanced permutation arguments as the easiest way for affirmative teams against the k - a competitive perm should have a net benefit. But as a judge, I attempt to come into the round with as little pretenses as possible, and if policy-orientation debate is your approach to the resolution I will certainly and easily vote on these types of arguments in the face of a incomprehensible criticism and/or blatant inattentiveness in this game we call policy debate. on this, I find that in-round education is a funnel that both types of debate can accomplish, and I’ve noticed myself more willing to continue these through on the flow.