Zuverink,+Evan

School: Marshall University

Background: I have been involved in debate (NFA-LD, CEDA, LD- value, and Parliamentary Debate- NOT PARLY) for roughly 10 years now. I started my debate career in 2001 in the WVCFL, moved to East Lansing, MI for my undergrad at Michigan State for 4 years, and have spent the past 1 1/2 years at Marshall University as the Debate Coach.

Rounds Judged: Lots. Everything from/up national final rounds.

Stylistic Preferences: As long as you don't look like a clown, aren't screaming, and aren't gasping for air (which I would clump in that first category), I'm fine with speed. I will always defer to the opponents check. Simply put, if your opponent asks you to slow down, do it! Otherwise, you can expect a loss in the round. A debater, or at least a good one, should be efficient with their time. Decorum is in my opinion of the utmost importance. If you are demeaning or rude, you can bet I'm gonna vote you down.... hard.

Paradigm: NFA established stock issues as the paradigm, so that's the paradigm I follow. However, looking at the nature of this years res, you'll tend to see a little policymaker coming out in the RFD's - so you should take that into consideration.

Do you think topicality should be a voting issue? Absolutely. A judge who says T isn't a voting issue clearly hasn't read or does not intend to uphold the rules.

Does there have to be demonstrable ground loss in order for you to vote on T? Nope, but it sure doesn't hurt. I think many debaters have lost the understanding of what topicality addresses: is the plan topical, as in within the realm of the res. If not, they are not topical and are gonna be voted down for it.

Would you ever vote on an RVI? Nope.

Do you strictly enforce NFA rules? Yes. It is my responsbility to uphold the rules that have been established. I don't require you to tell me to put a voter on T, as the rules already tell me T is a voter. I won't vote on a CP that isn't non-topical, and if you're gonna run a Kritik, then cool. But you better make darn well sure that it's worth listening to.

Does the negative have to win a disad in order for you to vote negative? Nope. It's this crazy thing call case side (Solvency, Harms, Inherency) that can still be debated, contrary to popular practice.

What kinds of impacts do you find most compelling--enormous impacts or more realistic impacts?

This is probably one of the most important areas of the debate this year.

Realistic. There is no empirical evidence of nuclear war. That being said, you need to have a really clear story as to how you're impacting out to whatever your going for. Also, please don't throw advantages like "moral imperatives" at me. I'll listen to them, but how does that weigh against something tangible?

Other remarks?

Not at this time.