Zimmermann,+Alex

I debated for Walt Whitman in Bethesda, MD for four years on both the local and national circuits.

The bottom line is that I will attempt to leave all contestable issues to be determined by the debaters. Like all judges, however, I have a variety of preferences and default settings that could influence your ability to win my ballot, and will likely influence speaks. Here's my attempt at explaining:

Speed: Please slow down on short analytics (theory interpretations, framework spikes, etc.). I’ll say clear, just know that if I have to say that it means there’s stuff you’re saying that isn’t on my flow. Also, I still flow on paper, so please let me know if you're going to read a big list of arguments against something small that could mess up my flow, so I can flow it on a separate sheet of paper.

Theory: I like theory debates when they are done well, with precise weighing between standards and internal links. I do, however, think debaters generally do a bad job of explaining why a specific violation is a reason your opponent should lose. So, I will default to reasonability, with the threshold being that you have to prove that the specific violation is sufficient to trigger the voter. This means that implications of theory shells (drop the argument/debater) are crucial because they determine how to avoid triggering the voter by implementing some rule. Your remedy should solve for the abuse occurring in round and should be justified by the amount of abuse occurring. Feel free to run arguments to justify reasonability or competing interpretations yourself. I would also prefer you compare internal links to fairness and education and the voters’ relevant importance rather than making arguments that one voter always comes before another in some sort of theory vacuum. I will evaluate RVIs as I would any other argument, but they should have some sort of text/interpretation that clarifies what is sufficient to trigger the RVI.

Presumption: I haven’t heard a compelling reason why I should presume aff or neg in the event of no offense, so in that scenario I’ll vote for whoever I think did the better, smarter, more strategic debating. Of course, you can make arguments for why presumption goes one way or another and that’s probably better.

Other random things:

Because of the arguments I ran as a senior, you might be inclined to believe I'll be more likely to vote for a densely philosophical position than other judges. That isn't the case—while when these positions are well-executed I find them interesting and strategic, when they're done poorly they are boring and confusing and repetitive. I am just as interested in hearing an in-depth, well-researched disad, plan, or otherwise consequentialist debate. I am not very well-read on most "critical"/post-modern philosophy, so please take time to make those arguments understandable to me.

Finally, here are a few random things I like:
 * A well-developed, layered **on-case** NC spread
 * New offensive 1AR strategies
 * Weighing beginning early in the round
 * Warrant/link-level argument interaction

And some things I dislike (you should expect very bad speaks if you do these things):
 * Disclosure theory, AFC, you must run x ethical theory, and other similar uneducational evasive uses of theory.
 * Massive generic block dumps, especially on theory (11 reasons fairness is not a voter, 18 reasons you meet the interpretation, etc.)
 * Conditional logic arguments that say challenging assumptions of the resolution means you affirm, especially when it's like 3 seconds in the AC

In terms of speaks, there's really no way to allocate them objectively. I reserve the right to give or take away speaks because of my subjective view of your arguments as smart/stupid, strategic/unstrategic, fair/unfair, educational/uneducational, etc.

Come pre-flowed and have fun. Please ask before the round if you have more specific questions.