Zhang,+Jeff

3 cardinal rules: 1. Don’t be rude, no matter how severely you might be crushing the other team. 2. Speak clearly. I’m fine with speed, just be clear when you read. If I don’t hear/understand an argument, I don’t flow it. 3. “Even if” and other comparative arguments are highly persuasive to me. I will try to evaluate teams mostly based on the arguments they make unless (A) arguments alone don’t resolve the issue OR (B) you draw my attention to the quality (or lack of quality) of a particular piece of evidence.

That said, a little bit about myself. I debated for four years at Chattahoochee High School beginning with the national service topic and ending with the social services topic. I went 4-3 at the TOC my junior/senior years, and got to the semifinals of the BF, so I’m not a complete idiot. I’ve judged approximately 12 rounds on this year’s topic at the ENDI camp tournament and at Wake Forest, so I know most of the big affs/acronyms. Nevertheless, I will admit that I could be better-informed on certain parts of the topic.

On to specific arguments. I’ll try to be brief because I’m not very picky. Don’t let my preferences change the way you debate. If you’re good with a certain argument and can win it, then by all means go for it. I will consider any argument. However, if I do note that I’m not a particular fan of an argument, it simply means that I am more likely to give your opponents’ responses more weight than typical.

DISADS: Love ‘em. My ideal 2NR would be a DA/CP or DA/case.

COUNTERPLANS: I’m a huge fan of specific, well-researched counterplans. Generic PICS/Consult/Conditions and such are generally not cool.

KRITIKS: This was one of my weaker areas in high school. 2NRs and 2ARs should be highly persuasive on how to evaluate the round, or the impacts within a round.

TOPICALITY: This is probably the area of the topic with which I’m most unfamiliar, so second rebuttals should make sure I understand what their arguments are. Reasonability is very persuasive in close T and theory debates.

THEORY: I view most theory as a reason to reject the argument, and not the team. I hate stupid theory arguments like Politics DAs bad, Dispo bad, etc.

Other random notes: - If an argument that is well-explained earlier in the debate is dropped by the other team, I will accept minimal levels of analysis on it later in the debate. - New 1AR/2NR/2AR arguments are generally not justified, unless in response to a new argument by the other team. Most of the time, pointing out that an argument is new is good enough for me to dismiss it. - I give offensive arguments more weight, but I will give well-explained or dropped defensive arguments a LOT of weight. Usually, I’m pretty flexible about how I evaluate offense-defense, and a good explanation regarding why I should prefer a certain method of evaluating arguments will fairly easily change my mind. - I am not a big fan of performance arguments. It’ll be fairly easy for a team to beat debate bad or norm arguments in front of me.