Zimmer,+Alec

Alec Zimmer

Last modified 20 Nov. 2011 [theory edited in response to question by a debater]

I debated at GBS for 4 years on the national circuit and did ok. I'm an ok flow but intelligent. None of this philosophy should be your primary concern while strategizing.


 * __Personal__**__:__ I'm a third year math and stat major at UChicago. In-depth and unique arguments are generally much more interesting (except for some one-off K teams) than a ton of off-case.

__**General:**__ I try to evaluate debates in a technical manner. Dropped arguments are true arguments and I try to avoid intervening whenever possible. If an argument is clearly answered elsewhere on the flow, then it's not dropped. However, if the dropped argument is by nature indeterminate then it's not 100% true (i.e. the fact that asteroids can hit us doesn't mean they'll inevitably kill us).

The team constructing an argument has the burden of proof.

Logic > cards. A smart argument is better than a crappy card in my book. I rarely read evidence post-round. This means evidence comparison is important. When I do read cards, I focus on warrants.

BTW don't worry if I make a fast decision – most of my decisions are quick and it doesn't necessarily mean that you/the other team got destroyed.

__**Theory:**__ I'm generally more ready to listen to aff theory arguments than most judges. I can be convinced that counterplan and critique theory is a reason to reject the team. Education is my default preferred standard.

I'm more open to international fiat bad and conditionality bad than most judges.

__**Critiques:**__ They're fine. If the negative's argument is vague and clarified later in the debate, I'm very willing to allow the aff to make new responses. The aff shouldn't be punished for the neg's inability to communicate. Similarly with teams that read critical affs.

__**"Offensive" Arguments:**__ You shouldn't feel constrained in your argument choice. Debate ought to be a site for contesting controversial views. However, this is separate from making discriminatory statements not relevant to the debate or using offensive language.

__**Ethics:**__ Please point out anything shady or questionably ethical you may see, i.e. clipping cards. There are some ethical issues I'm not willing to change my perspective on regardless of how debaters debate things out. Even if the other team doesn't point this out, if I realize one of the following occurs I'll intervene. If the other team does something morally questionable and you stop the round after their speech and call them out I'll probably side with you as long as there's evidence.

If you have an questions/comments, you can contact me at zimmerx@gmail.com