Ullman,+Zachary

In General:

I debated for 4 years at the University of Florida and am now a third year law student. When I debated I mostly did policy oriented arguments but in my final semester I ran one-off Ks and planless affs with an advocacy statement. I strongly feel that debater should play with the arguments they are most comfortable making. However, I have some stylistic and substantive preferences.

Case- The 1AC is often your best weapon against the off case positions. Be aware that I will vote on zero risk of solvency or a lack of inherency.

T- My current education and hopefully future job is a T debate slowed down. Debaters need to hone in on their standards as well as whether the aff meets an interpretation. On T, I find "T is jurisdictional" and "framers intent" arguments entirely unpersuasive. Whether T is a question of the best interpretation or if the aff has a reasonable interpretation is and should be part of the round.

Disad- I will vote on zero risk of a disad. Teams need to develop their link story more than reading off as many big impacts as possible.

CP- The CP's net benefit should be clearly spelled out and I really like net benefits that function as independent disads.

CP theory- I lean aff on states CP is illegitimate, neg on limited conditionality, and neutral on everything else. Excessive permutations annoy me.

K- I have a basic grasp of critical literature. I presume Zizek has no credibility and slightly lean pro-capitalism. Debaters should slow down on Ks and be able to explain it to me in their own words and with minimal technical jargon.

Framework- Not a fan unless it's absolutely necessary. I would rather judge a debate over deontology vs. consequences. However, I accept project affs because the norms of debate (plan as representation of the resolution, technical academic focus, speed, focus on nuke war scenarios, etc) are debatable. If you must go for framework, clearly articulate your definition of fairness and defend your type of education.

Other notes:

If you are doing a courts aff or CP you need to be able to demonstrate how someone standing to sue and how the courts you selected can rule on this issue.

Fighting with your partner is the quickest way to lose speaker points.

Elections related arguments- Congress is not in session until after the election. If your disad shell fails to account for this, I will refuse to flow or vote on it.

Ask if you have a question or need clarification