Zhuang,+Jimmy

HS: Monta Vista -- Cupertino, c/o 2004 College: Dartmouth, c/o 2008 Currently PhD candidate at Harvard, c/o 2013 Two years of varsity national circuit LD experience in high school; three years of overall high school LD experience. Two years of LD judging experience.

I'm a fairly standard LD flow judge. I hope to have a value-criterion established early, and look for argumentation that impacts to that criterion. Mechanics of the flow, such as addressing opponent's points, weighing arguments, grouping arguments, and pointing out voting issues are good sign-posts for me. I prefer speed to be used as a tool, and not as a weapon. In terms of the support for arguments, I prefer analysis over either vacuous philosophical paradigms or glib statistical or textual references. A well-supported LD argument, in my mind, can come from a number of sources, including things like statistics or philosophy, but the core of it should be how it is analyzed by the debater and impacted to the round and its criterion.

When it comes to deciding ballots, I first look at the mechanical side of flows. If there are crucially dropped arguments or outweighed issues, the round is easy to decide in my mind. However, most of the better rounds are for the most part structurally sound for both debaters, in which case I examine the analysis behind the arguments that the debaters presented, as well as how they are impacted to the criterion.

Despite what I deem to be this "moderate" take to judging, I will tolerate kritiks, narratives, definitional shifts, observations, and anything novel or policy-like that a debater brings to the round. I believe it is the duty of the opposing debater to convince me why I shouldn't vote for unconventional strategies, which shouldn't be too difficult since I did just say I'm a fairly standard moderate LD judge.

Everything I mentioned above directly relates to the win-loss decision. As for awarding the speaker points, I will go by what I consider to be the key educational objectives of high school debate: (1) reason logically; (2) research diligently; and (3) argue articulately. You can win a round while accomplishing all or none of the these three goals simply due to a poor opponent, but I will still hold you accountable for these three virtues in my speaker points evaluation. If you want a 30, make sure your in-round performance demonstrates these three achievements.

Lastly, as a personal note, I just wish to remind all you go-getters that high school debate is meant to be a learning experience. Sometimes many people (including myself when I was a high school LDer) get so embroiled at tournaments and on the circuit that we lose sight of the big picture. I majored in biology and math in college, and am currently pursuing a PhD in biochemistry; while reading Locke or Friedman in high school didn't help in my advanced studies AT ALL, having experienced how to articulate myself publicly in wide-ranging topic areas benefited even a science geek like me tremendously. As good as winning a round feels, in the long run, improving general abilities through learning -- the overarching goal of high school, including debate -- is the ultimate reward. So have fun and keep an open mind! There's always room for improvement!

Best of luck!