Zipursky,+Gillian


 * __ Paradigm: __** I debated for 4 years for Scarsdale High School in LD on the National Circuit, qualifying to TOC my junior and senior years. Conflicts are Scarsdale and Hunter College High School.


 * General: ** I don’t have any strong preferences—the round is yours, not mine. I will do my best to default to whatever the debaters seem to assume/agree upon in the round. For example, if the whole round is a theory debate, but there was never a fairness voter and neither debater points it out, I will not arbitrarily discount theory. I think Mark Gorthey was the ideal judge and I will try my hardest to judge like him.

The following thoughts are **__general defaults__** and can **__easily be changed__** with an argument made in round.
 * Thoughts: **
 * I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments, but mention them.
 * Arguments must have a semblance of a warrant for me to vote on them. This doesn’t mean the argument have to be well developed—it just can’t be “The sky is blue so affirm”
 * Lack of comparison of offense on the same layer of the debate is hard to resolve—I would default to something like strength of link or strength of explanation in the absence of ANY comparison whatsoever. Just do some and we should be set.
 * Try your best to number or letter your responses if you have multiple. Otherwise it’s hard to flow.
 * I am generally pretty skeptical of embedded clash, but I think a little bit is probably inevitable. The more explicit the interactions the better


 * Theory: **
 * Read whatever shell you want (with the obvious caveat of anything very offensive)
 * You need offense to a counter interp under competing interps.
 * I’ll err aff on 2NR theory cause it’s so tough to evaluate it.
 * As I said above, I will do my best to default to what the debaters are assuming in round (i.e. paradigm issues), but if I really cannot tell and no one justifies either side I will default to thinking fairness is a voter, drop the argument on theory and drop the debater on T, competing interps, and no RVIs.


 * Kritiks: **
 * I think I am at least somewhat familiar with most of the common K arguments in debate, but explanation is still important
 * Perms should be explicitly answered. I will not crossapply links as disads for you.
 * Framing on the Kritik and 2NR/2AR overviews can be helpful, but that doesn’t mean you can drop arguments on the line by line (sometimes the overviews can be excessive)
 * K v K debates, especially high theory v high theory debates (even really great debates) can be difficult to evaluate because there ends up being a lot of arguments. When having these debates, be sure to do lots of interactions.
 * I will try my best not to err one way or the other for theory v role of the ballot claims. However, if neither side says ANYTHING I will presume theory comes first.


 * LARP: **
 * As everyone says, weighing in LARP is especially important!


 * Framework: **
 * I am familiar with most of the common LD frameworks, but if its obscure a little extra explanation would be helpful
 * Comparison on framework as opposed to responses in a vacuum usually improves quality on these debates