Zin,+David

- Coach a team - High School debater - College debater - Frequently Judge I like debaters to have enough freedom to define the parameters of the rounds. As a result, whatever ratings I've assigned to the MIFA questions on paradigms and argument preferences are highly suspect: I am more than willing to let the debaters determine the validity of stuff in the context of the round.
 * Judge's Name**: ZIn, David
 * High School Graduation Date:** 1983
 * Judge's e-mail**: dzcmsdebate@yahoo.com
 * Experience:**
 * Rounds Judged this topic:** 13
 * Judge Paradigm:** Hypothesis tester
 * Rate of Delivery:** 4 Moderately fast
 * Quantity of Arguments:** 3 A moderate number
 * Topicality:** 3 Moderately
 * Counterplans:** 2 usually acceptable
 * Generic Disadvantages**: 1 acceptable
 * Conditional Negative Positions:** 3 sometimes acceptable
 * Debate Theory Arguments:** 1 acceptable
 * Kritik arguments:** 3 sometimes acceptable
 * Overall judging paradigm:**

I like all the things we all find enjoyable about debate, in terms of the arguments and strategy and stuff but do have some heavy nostalgia for the days when the communication aspect was more heavily emphasized. That doesn't necessarily mean slow; but explanation versus reading; humor versus reading; adapting your analysis to the specific arguments on hand versus reading are really nice things and highlight that you ought to get great speaks. And often they are the same things that win you rounds. I am potentially neither as fast a flow as I used to be (rest assured, you needn't pretend the round is after-dinner speaking) and I certainly have not kept pace with many of the argumentative developments that have occurred over the years (I still think 2nc ought to be able to run new arguments). I know and understand a number of K's, but if you make the assumption I am intimately familiar with some aspect of Kato, Taoism, Heidegger, or whoever, you may not like the results you get. Half the time I still struggle to be conversant about what many of these arguments involve unless somebody prompts me (indigenous peoples and nuclear development, anthropocentrism, tech=evil, etc.)--so don't just rely on the label of the argument when you first present it.

Having discussed my inadequacies as a judge, here is my default position for judging rounds: Absent other argumentation, I view the focus of the round as the resolution. The resolution may implicitly shrink to the affirmative if that is the only representation discussed. If I sign the ballot affirmative, I am generally voting to implement the resolution, and if the affirmative is the only representation, then it is as embodied by the plan. However, I like the debaters to essentially have free rein--making me somewhat tabula rosa. I also like cases that have essential content and theory elements (stock issues), but if one is missing or bad, the negative needs to bring it up and win it to win. I do view my role as a policy maker, in that I am trying to evaluate the merits of a policy that will be applied to the real world--but that evaluation is being done in a format that has strong gamelike aspects and strong "cognitive laboratory" aspects. As such, I will accept counter-intuitive arguments (e.g. extinction is good) and vote on them--although you will have to justify/win such an approach and there is a bit of a natural bias against such arguments.

I say "absent other argumentation" because if you want me to use another process, I can be convinced of doing so. I'm pretty open-minded about arguments (even counter-intuitive ones), so if you want to run something, either theoretical or substantive, justify it, argue it, and if you win it, I'll vote for it.

The biggest problem I observed when I judged college rounds, and at the high school level, is that debates about how I should evaluate the round are often incomplete and/or muddled, such as justifying the use of some deontological criteria on utilitarian grounds. While such consequentialism is certainly an option in evaluating deontological positions, I struggle to see how I'm not ultimately just deciding a round on some utilitarian risk-based decision calculus like I would ordinarily use. So make it clear why you win the round, not just a bunch of arguments.

As for argument preferences, while I'll vote on things that do not meet my criteria, I dislike being put in that position. I like a 2ar/2nr that ties up loose ends and evaluates--recognizing that they probably aren't winning everything on the flow. I like debaters to be polite and intelligible.

Given my hypothesis-testing tendencies, conditionality can be fine. However, as indicated above, by default I view the round as a policy-making choice. If you run three conditional counterplans, that's fine but I need to know what they are conditional upon or I don't know what policy I am voting for when I sign the ballot—or if I even need to evaluate them. I prefer, although almost never get it, that conditionality should be based on a substantive argument in the round, preferably a claim the aff made.

While they don't occur often, I like both theory args and T when the debate unfolds with real analysis, not a ton of 3-5 word tags that people rip through. Theory arguments (including T) can be very rewarding, and often are a place where the best debaters can show their skills. However, debaters often provide poorly developed arguments and the debate often lacks real analysis. At the high school level, the responses are either short tags with no explanation and are delivered so rapidly it is essentially impossible to flow all of them, or they are rambling explanations that it is unclear what the tag is to put on the flow. I do not like theory arguments that eliminate ground for one side or the other, are patently abusive, or patently time sucks. I like theory arguments but want them treated well. I'm not a fan of K's, but I will vote on one if two things happen: 1) I understand it and 2) you win it.

I don't like to ask for cards after the round and will not ask for a card I couldn't understand because you were unintelligible. If there is a debate over what a card really says or signifies, or it seems to contain a nuance highlighted in the round that is worth checking, I may ask for the evidence.

I traditionally rely on providing nonverbal feedback—if I'm not writing anything, or I'm looking at you with a confused expression, I'm probably not getting what you are saying for one reason or another.

Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute. If I missed something in your speech, that is your fault--either because you did not emphasize it adequately in the round or you were unintelligible. If you are a gasper, you'll probably get better points if you slow down a bit. I tend to dislike prompting on content, but keeping your partner on pace is fine. I'd prefer you ask/answer your own c-x questions. I like numbering and organization, even though much of that seems to have died. Similarly, I'll reward you if you have clear tags that would fit on a bumper sticker I could read without tailgating--however, make sure there is some explanation behind those tags. If you rip through 10 great tags with no explanation behind them, I'm likely to miss a number of them and none of them will provide me much weight to use in evaluating the round.

If you have other questions, feel free to ask me.