Walters,+Zach


 * About Me: **

I debated four years at Yankton High School and at The University of South Dakota (once we restarted the program last year). I was mainly a Lincoln Douglas debater in high school, but I have competed in policy and parliamentary debate. I have judged the South Dakota high school circuit over five years with a big push in judging varsity CX the last two years.


 * Judging Paradigm: **

I am a Tabula Rasa style judge, so I hope teams are comfortable experimenting with different arguments--on or off case. I do default to Policy Maker when the competitors do not tell me how to vote for the round.


 * Sign Posting **

I have found that the best rounds I have judged are the product of clean sign posting. Sign posting is a fundamental component of making a clear decision at the end of the round. Any team that believes they can go without signposting will suffer by ignoring it.


 * Speed Preference **

I do not have the ear for CEDA like speeds, it's just overwhelming. On a scale of 1-10, whereas, 1 is the slowest and 10 is the fastest, I am probably comfortable to a 7.


 * Topicality/Extra-Topicality **

I expect T to be important for the negative this year. If this argument is on the flow, it has to be there because the Negative team believes the case is clearly non-topical/extra-topical. The affirmative's best strategy against T is to go line by line and provide counter definition and interpretation.


 * Counter Plan **

I accept the Counter plan with few qualms, but it better be competitive and mutually exclusive. If a CP is used, generic link scenarios are not encouraged against the Affirmative case.


 * DA **

All Disadvantages have value in the round and I strongly recommend them. Extinction is an acceptable impact endgame. Specific link scenarios are easy for me to believe because the scenario had to be well thought out in advance. This makes the debate far more interesting also. Affirmative is encouraged to turn the DA for offense.


 * Theory **

Debate theory is fine, but I do not believe it is a voting issue. I only want to hear debate theory if it validates the Negative/Affirmative strategy.


 * Kritik **

I really like to hear the K. I am a social science undergraduate student at the University of South Dakota and I have spent much of my time at the University steeped in critical literature. The K alone is enough reason for me to vote for a team, so long as they can link to the opposition and give me compelling reasons to believe in the K. If a team wins the K in round, it will shape my perspective for the rest of the arguments in round, unless the Alternative is to reject the opposition outright. Speed Critiques are not worthwhile, unless the opposition is incomprehensible. Also, do not run bio-politics if you pronounce Foucault as Faux-Cult. I will find the team disingenuous if this happens. It is clear the team running the K has pulled a back file or was handed the file by their coach/teammates without understanding the origin of the material or the nature of the argument.