Zaleznik,+Daniel

I am a former LD debater who graduated in '04. I have been judging since then. I also debated some policy in college.

I do my best to evaluate rounds exclusively based on what is said by the debaters.

Arguments, even drops, cannot be extended without a warrant.

I have a standards-centric evaluative metric. I always look to criterion/framework arguments first, unless you tell me to look to something else first. Please weigh arguments.

My threshold for voting off of theory arguments is high, but not too high. Do not be discouraged from running theory in front of me.

I do not penalize speed. However, if you spread a blippy framework, I might miss something.

I enjoy kritiks and alternative forms of argumentation, provided that they are well developed. As a former philosophy student, I always prefer philosophical analysis, but have a low tolerance for badly developed or pseudo-philosphical arguments.

I always prefer well developed analysis. Speaker points are awarded mostly based on the quality of argumentation.