Pestcoe,+Zack


 * Affiliation: Cypress Bay High School, University of Florida **

 **Background:** Policy debate for all 4 years of high school. Not currently debating in college.

 **Rounds on the Topic: 5-10**

 **General Philosophy:** Feel free to read whatever arguments you want. I’ll adapt to you to the best of my abilities, you shouldn’t have to adapt to me. On aff I feel like I am best at evaluating affs at least tangentially related to the topic and on neg I feel that I am best evaluating arguments that aren’t overly bogged down in jargon. That being said, through high school, I exclusively read affs with plans or advocacy statements with ‘kritikal’ impacts that at least tangentially related to the topic. I was a 2A and my affirmatives included a core heg aff, a bio politics aff, and an advocacy to sit around and have a discussion about the ocean’s fluidity and how it related to our identity. On neg, my 1nrs were usually politics/ DA or T, but on occasion it would be security or some basic DnG arguments. Ultimately, read what you’re comfortable with and as long as you are able to explain it well, you should be fine. If you’re reading very K heavy arguments I likely won’t understand the jargon so make sure you explain it well.
 * Framework **: It’s a good argument but like everything else, it can’t be read generically. Framework against affirmatives that don’t engage with the topic or do so minimally need to be adapted to and interact with the 1AC. External to that go for what you want. I feel limits is probably the most compelling standard but things like dogmatism, topic education, ground etc. are also cool.

 **Framing:** I feel like some form of advocacy is necessary in every 1AC. External to that, I’ll evaluate the round through whatever justified lens I’m given. If there are no framing arguments in the debate round, I will default to a cost benefit analysis of the 1AC’s advocacy.

 **Topicality:** I think topicality and framework are two of the most strategic arguments a negative team can use. Some of my favorite rounds I’ve watched and participated in are nuanced, specific topicality debates against affs that are clearly topical. I think competing interpretations is the only real way to evaluate topicality.
 * DA/CP: **Go for it. Most of my 1NRs were politics and a PIC. I feel like 100% terminal defense is hard to win but possible.

 **K:** Go for it but explain it. Explain your alternative and what it looks like. Explain specific links to the 1AC not simple generic links. Explain your jargon. I enjoy K debates and sometimes I do get lost in them. I feel like the majority of the time if I am lost in a K debate its due to a lack of explanation and almost always because some jargon is unexplained.

 **Theory:** I default to rejecting the argument, not the team. I think theory is often underused in debate and I enjoy a good theory debate as long as all the standards are flushed out and impacted out. My favorite theory impacts are those that are connected to the debate community itself and argumentation within the debate community.
 * Speaks: ** I like smart debate. If your making smart strategic decisions, are easily comprehensible and aren’t rude, your speaks will be fine. If you go for bad arguments, are constantly unclear or are rude, I will take out my anger/disappointment on your speaks.

 **If you have any questions email me at zpestcoe@ufl.edu**