Schnall,+Zachary


 * Name:** Zack Schnall
 * Affiliation:** Debater at Lexington 2016, Harvard 2021; Assistant Coach at Lexington
 * School Strikes:** Lexington


 * Topic:** I will be going to some but not many tournaments on this topic. My knowledge of the topic is limited to the few debates I’ll judge and the varied research I’ll do. This means I will not immediately know all of the relevant terms and acronyms, nor will I likely have the exact same take on the topic literature as you. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear the topic – I would rather judge an in-depth case debate – but you should be aware of where I’m coming from.


 * Bias:** I try to avoid bias in evaluating debate rounds. I realize that’s not entirely possible, though **I will do my best to refrain from intervention in the debate.** I have run varied styles of arguments; as a 2N, I debated anything from counterpoems and the shunning kritik to the military cp with politics net benefits. As a 2A, I’ve defended increasing port security and a radical dismantling of the surveillance state. I will listen to pretty much any argument; I think you should respect your opponents if they are emotionally distressed when forced to talk about a certain argument, but teams, don’t abuse this; I highly doubt it is emotional distress for you to answer the politics disadvantage (even if you lost a break round to it before). I’m not going to hack for a policy team or a kritikal team. I’m not going to hack for a top-tier team; you have to win this debate, not ones in the past, not ones in the future.


 * Thoughts on Arguments:** I don’t think “1AR dropped turns case” automatically means a neg ballot if you can’t give a warranted explanation of how your da/k actually turns case. If you aren’t explaining your alt, it probably doesn’t solve as much as you think it does. **Making offensive arguments** (hurtful, not the opposite of defensive) **will damage your speaker points.** It will be an uphill battle for you to defend seriously offensive representations. Then again, when accidental, I do believe rejecting the argument and not the team is typically sufficient. Not the biggest fan of process cps or pics that don’t have a net benefit based on relevant substance, but if the aff just spreads through a 10-year old theory block, I’m comfortable with any cp. The more planks a cp has, the more flexibility I generally think the aff should get with perms. Agree that the way the aff typically tries to frame reasonability isn’t great. Disagree that “we limit out one more aff than they do” means I vote neg on a risk of a link to your limits da. I always have and always will love case debate. I like judging a debater who clearly did their own research on the topic.


 * Dropped Arguments:** A technical concession by the other team is not an automatic win. You still have to make your argument in the final speech, and explain why their concession will make the debate easy to evaluate. **I want you to use your entire speech time.** Never give up, and never be so confident in yourself that you finish before you have actually won the debate. **I appreciate technical debate but I am a sucker for a gut check.** Even if a 1AR ends their speech with “we meet because –,” if they really do blatantly meet, you should not be going for that violation. Conversely, if the 1AR ends their speech with “no new block args” and the 2NR drops that (cough), that isn’t an auto-win. **Debate your opponents at their best.**


 * Clarity:** I want to hear what you are saying, not just have a vague idea of what your tag is. You can still spread in front of me, don’t worry. I talk pretty fast myself, and I have a decent flow. **I will default to saying clear as often as necessary.** If I say clear, chances are that I missed what you just said, so if you immediately move on, I still won’t know what you were trying to get across. If you would prefer for me not to say clear, I will refrain from doing so, but then please keep an eye on me from time to time to make sure I am getting down the words you want me to. I would rather base my flow off your speech than your speech doc, so slow down on texts of plans or cps.


 * Argumentation:** I like warrants. Strong evidence is important, but so are warranted analytics. **Making smart, innovative arguments in front of me is a good way to boost your speaker points.** Don’t cut cards out of context, or knowingly use cards that others cut out of context.


 * Types of Debate:** I will default to assuming that I am a person in a classroom at a debate tournament, listening to students discuss issues. My job is to evaluate the effects of these issues, and **I will assume that I am a policymaker** for these issues **if there is no contention** throughout the round. **If there is contention, it’s a level playing field.** I vastly prefer for these issues to pertain to the topic in a reasonable manner, but I can be swayed on how reasonably these issues pertain to the topic, and if they should pertain at all. When evaluating impacts, I will default to consequentialism, solely for the sheer number of people that assume it’s the only way to debate. If you can debate other forms of ethics well, have at it, I will be a good judge for you.

In cases where a doc crashes or you have a coughing fit during prep, I am generally lenient in pausing time. During a speech, it’s a little trickier. If there’s a health issue, the round will halt, but if your computer crashes, then hope your partner or your opponents had your speech open. Part of debate is presentation – if you can’t speak on your feet, then there’s a bigger problem.
 * Prep:** Prep time ends when you are saving the speech document/have stopped talking to your partner. If you are “flashing” and I see extraneous typing that could not solely be due to your speech file name, I will announce that I am starting prep. Likewise, **if you begin talking to your partner or writing things on your flow, I will announce that I am resuming prep** and continue the timer’s countdown. If the timer has run out I will start your speech. In case this is too complicated, here is a list of the things you are allowed to do between prep time and a speech:
 * Save/send your speech doc
 * Gather your flows
 * Stand up and walk to where you are delivering the speech
 * Make sure your screen is on/resolve any pop-ups
 * Run to grab a drink of water (time permitting)
 * Run to go to the restroom (time permitting)


 * Ethics Violations:** I cannot decide if I hate the existence of violations or the reasons why violations occur more. Either way, bringing up a violation will NOT cost you points if you are correct, but it will make me sad. I will give 0 speaker points and a loss to the losing team in an ethics violation. However, the way that I determine ethics violations is a little different than other judges. I will allow both sides to choose whether or not they want the round to continue. If both sides say no, I will decide the round then and there. If the sides disagree, it will be my discretion to stop or continue the round. If both sides agree to continue the round, the round will go on, with each side using their remaining speech time exclusively on the subject matter of the ethics violation. You may ask why I do this. I want to give the accused team a chance to stand up for themselves. Mistakes happen, and it’s important to evaluate the intentionality behind an act just as much the act itself. Still, I believe that judge intervention is one of the most prevalent issues within debate, and will do my best to only judge the end results of each round. If the debate is continued, truth will begin to outweigh tech (i.e. if there are disparate teams debating each other, the better team will not be able to make up an ethics violation to win the round).