Zagorin,+Edmund

I debated four years in high school on the national circuit, cleared at the TOC and currently debate in college for the University of Michigan. I prefer persuasion over tech, specificity over generality, and good analytics over bad cards. I try to reward strategic creativity. I will listen to any argument, any style, any form so long as it is justified by the debaters.

Arguments I prefer: PICs, Relations DAs, specific kritiks on a poststructuralist wavelength, anything Malthus, allegories, ad hominems and creative advantage counterplans.

Arguments that are somewhat less credible in front of me: Aspec, Ospec, T substantial, Consult Counterplans, Conditionality Bad, Disad intrinsicness, generic kritiks on a psychoanalytic wavelength, objectivism.

Theory: The first question I evaluate is the question of the remedy— does it make the counterplan or disad or kritik go away? Is it a reason to make that team lose? Does it mean I only evaluate arguments in the first 3 minutes of the 2ac? Does it mean I should assign you extra risk of a DA, because their abusive strategy prevented you from making damning impact calculus? If I am not told what to do with a theory argument, I tend to default to ‘reject the argument, not the team.’

Evidence: I will read evidence to resolve a contention, evaluate quality in a debate where quality is important and to check author qualifications.

Ethics: Debate has no rules other than those established by the debaters. That said, physical violence, destruction of property and sexual or racialized harassment should be kept to a minimum.

This list is purely informational; I will listen to anything and I advise that debaters play to their strengths.