kissmycls
11-28-06, 09:56 PM
This is from UoP 2006.
John Zamoyski
I have participated in parliamentary debate for two years now, and I am a strictly non-
interventionist, flow judge. I like to see clear arguments, structure and impacts; your reasoning
should be easy to follow. I will hear any position: topicality, vagueness, solvency press, kritik,
whatever you want to run. I generally prefer seeing policy cases, but that is entirely up to you;
Debate is a game and you can decide the rules. If you run any position, be prepared to justify it
(if you run a T, for example, be prepared to argue why you should win on T, and conversely, the
gov can argue why I should never vote on T). As a judge, I will generally believe anything you tell
me: if the OPP says the sky is red and the Gov never responds, I am left thinking the sky is red
(after the round, I will correct such mistakes, but in making my decision, I feel it is fair only to
consider the arguments made by the debaters). Essentially, I want to step back and let the
debaters have control over their round. If you are being abused, you can point it out and tell me
why I should vote on it; otherwise, I will not do that work for you. At the end of a debate, I want
to see clean rebuttals that narrow the arguments down to the most essential and contested
points to allow me to write an easy ballot.
Debate is supposed to be educational and interesting, so have fun, and make whatever
arguments you want as long as you justify them.
John Zamoyski
I have participated in parliamentary debate for two years now, and I am a strictly non-
interventionist, flow judge. I like to see clear arguments, structure and impacts; your reasoning
should be easy to follow. I will hear any position: topicality, vagueness, solvency press, kritik,
whatever you want to run. I generally prefer seeing policy cases, but that is entirely up to you;
Debate is a game and you can decide the rules. If you run any position, be prepared to justify it
(if you run a T, for example, be prepared to argue why you should win on T, and conversely, the
gov can argue why I should never vote on T). As a judge, I will generally believe anything you tell
me: if the OPP says the sky is red and the Gov never responds, I am left thinking the sky is red
(after the round, I will correct such mistakes, but in making my decision, I feel it is fair only to
consider the arguments made by the debaters). Essentially, I want to step back and let the
debaters have control over their round. If you are being abused, you can point it out and tell me
why I should vote on it; otherwise, I will not do that work for you. At the end of a debate, I want
to see clean rebuttals that narrow the arguments down to the most essential and contested
points to allow me to write an easy ballot.
Debate is supposed to be educational and interesting, so have fun, and make whatever
arguments you want as long as you justify them.