Shaw,+Zana

Zana Shaw High School: Deer Park High School High School Debate Experience: Policy Debate College: University of Houston Current Debate Team: University of Houston Rounds judged this year: 15 Years Judging: 0 Current Job: Student Other info: I'm a pretty pragmatic person. I don't want to listen to silly, uninformative debates.

Paradigm - Tab On a scale of 1 (Traditional) and 11 (Kritikal) - 6 Favorite Debate Argument: Least Favorite Argument: Won't vote on: If your argument is plainly unethical, I'm obviously not going to vote in your favor. Otherwise, I'm not too strict. Other broad preferences: I dislike aggression in the debate space. If you think shouting at and insulting your opponent makes you look confident, you're wrong; it makes you look evasive and angry. Debate is about learning, not dominating.

Specifics - Likely to vote on (1 is low, 5 is high) Topicality 3 Theory 3 Disads 4 Counterplans 4 Kritiks 3

A good debate about Topicality A good debate about Theory:

A good debate about disads: Relevance A good debate about counterplans: Competitiveness A good debate about Kritiks: The only prerequisite for a good Kritikal debate in my opinion is simple: necessity. It's not very compelling to hear a debate about how some aspect of the aff is problematic when it's just not.

Other specific argument prefences:

Other Things: Speed: 4 Their flow: 4 Comments on flowing/speed: Do NOT scream the content on your cards. It makes it very easy for me to disengage from your argument. Don't go too fast if you can't speak clearly.

Gives good speaker points (1 is low, 10 is high) - Self rated- 9 Factors for speaker points: Clarity and precision. Avoid the obvious blunders (i.e. "um" and "like"). Broad language can get muddled easier than you think. Again, if you're an angry debater, your speaker points will not look good. I usually give a generous amount of speaker points.

Other: