UIL Speech Judges
If you have corrections, questions or comments regarding this information, please notify The UIL Speech and Debate department at speech@uiltexas.org or 512-471-5883.
Jonathan Zanzuri
Current high school:
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 250
High school attended:
Lovejoy High School
Graduated high school: 2022
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
My name is Jonathan Zanzuri, I debated at Lovejoy High School for 3 years.
TOC qual (2022), NSDA Nats Top 10 (2022), UIL 5A 3rd place/2nd speaker (2022) TFA State Octofinals (2022)
Judging Philosophy
CX
Rounds judged: 6
Judging approach: Other (please explain below)
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: My name is Jonathan Zanzuri, I debated at Lovejoy High School for 3 years. TOC qual (2022), NSDA Nats Top 10 (2022), UIL 5A 3rd place/2nd speaker (2022) Add: jzanzuri @ gmail . com General things - - I’m more comfortable with a CP/DA debate over a K debate, but I've had lots of experience with both and am down to judge anything. - Speed is fine, sign post - Tech > Truth - I have limited topic knowledge so don’t assume I know every acronym that you read. -Favorite arguments - Case turns (impact turns specifically), Advantage CPs, Politics DAs, T. Disadvantages - This is the argument I'm most comfortable with. I have a particular affinity for the politics disadvantage. When reading a disad, be sure to give a clear explanation of the internal link scenario and proper impact weighing (no "nuclear war" and just moving on). - I believe that in most cases, the link is more important for determining the direction of risk than uniqueness. The exceptions are when the uniqueness can be definitively determined rather than probabilistic Counterplans - The more case-specific, the better. If you're going to try to go for a permutation, paint a world of the perm instead of just saying "we'll do both". You need offense on why the perm is better than the CP, I.e. solvency deficits, DAs, etc. Won't judge kick unless explicitly told to do so. For CP theory, I don’t lean either way and won’t care how abusive the CP is as long as you can win the theory debate. Topicality - I default to competing interpretations but you should always be reading reasonability in the 2ac. The more topic-specific the definition, the better. Treat T like a DA debate and weigh the standards/voters. - I personally love T debates and will evaluate them through an offense/defense paradigm. I don't have much experience on this topic so I'm not used to the norms on T. - There shouldn't be a T round without a case list. - Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense. Kritiks - Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik. - I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. - make sure to be highly organized with a comprehensible structure. - Ks where I’m familiar with the literature: cap, security, biopolitics, necropolitics. - Ks where I’m not familiar with the literature: everything else. Theory - I don't have any biases on theory and will vote on literally any theory argument if you win offense. Every part of the theory debate is offense/defense and I'll treat your theory/procedural debates like a DA/CP debate. K-Affs If you do read a K-aff, be sure it has a relation to the topic and clear advocacy. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
Judging approach: Other (please explain below)
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: My name is Jonathan Zanzuri, I debated at Lovejoy High School for 3 years. TOC qual (2022), NSDA Nats Top 10 (2022), UIL 5A 3rd place/2nd speaker (2022) Add: jzanzuri @ gmail . com General things - - I’m more comfortable with a CP/DA debate over a K debate, but I've had lots of experience with both and am down to judge anything. - Speed is fine, sign post - Tech > Truth - I have limited topic knowledge so don’t assume I know every acronym that you read. -Favorite arguments - Case turns (impact turns specifically), Advantage CPs, Politics DAs, T. Disadvantages - This is the argument I'm most comfortable with. I have a particular affinity for the politics disadvantage. When reading a disad, be sure to give a clear explanation of the internal link scenario and proper impact weighing (no "nuclear war" and just moving on). - I believe that in most cases, the link is more important for determining the direction of risk than uniqueness. The exceptions are when the uniqueness can be definitively determined rather than probabilistic Counterplans - The more case-specific, the better. If you're going to try to go for a permutation, paint a world of the perm instead of just saying "we'll do both". You need offense on why the perm is better than the CP, I.e. solvency deficits, DAs, etc. Won't judge kick unless explicitly told to do so. For CP theory, I don’t lean either way and won’t care how abusive the CP is as long as you can win the theory debate. Topicality - I default to competing interpretations but you should always be reading reasonability in the 2ac. The more topic-specific the definition, the better. Treat T like a DA debate and weigh the standards/voters. - I personally love T debates and will evaluate them through an offense/defense paradigm. I don't have much experience on this topic so I'm not used to the norms on T. - There shouldn't be a T round without a case list. - Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense. Kritiks - Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik. - I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. - make sure to be highly organized with a comprehensible structure. - Ks where I’m familiar with the literature: cap, security, biopolitics, necropolitics. - Ks where I’m not familiar with the literature: everything else. Theory - I don't have any biases on theory and will vote on literally any theory argument if you win offense. Every part of the theory debate is offense/defense and I'll treat your theory/procedural debates like a DA/CP debate. K-Affs If you do read a K-aff, be sure it has a relation to the topic and clear advocacy. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
LD
Rounds judged: 2
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
My name is Jonathan Zanzuri, I debated at Lovejoy High School for 3 years. TOC qual (2022), NSDA Nats Top 10 (2022), UIL 5A 3rd place/2nd speaker (2022) Add: jzanzuri @ gmail . com General things - - I’m more comfortable with a CP/DA debate over a K debate, but I've had lots of experience with both and am down to judge anything. - Speed is fine, sign post - Tech > Truth - I have limited topic knowledge so don’t assume I know every acronym that you read. -Favorite arguments - Case turns (impact turns specifically), Advantage CPs, Politics DAs, T. Disadvantages - This is the argument I'm most comfortable with. I have a particular affinity for the politics disadvantage. When reading a disad, be sure to give a clear explanation of the internal link scenario and proper impact weighing (no "nuclear war" and just moving on). - I believe that in most cases, the link is more important for determining the direction of risk than uniqueness. The exceptions are when the uniqueness can be definitively determined rather than probabilistic Counterplans - The more case-specific, the better. If you're going to try to go for a permutation, paint a world of the perm instead of just saying "we'll do both". You need offense on why the perm is better than the CP, I.e. solvency deficits, DAs, etc. Won't judge kick unless explicitly told to do so. For CP theory, I don’t lean either way and won’t care how abusive the CP is as long as you can win the theory debate. Topicality - I default to competing interpretations but you should always be reading reasonability in the 2ac. The more topic-specific the definition, the better. Treat T like a DA debate and weigh the standards/voters. - I personally love T debates and will evaluate them through an offense/defense paradigm. I don't have much experience on this topic so I'm not used to the norms on T. - There shouldn't be a T round without a case list. - Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense. Kritiks - Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik. - I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. - make sure to be highly organized with a comprehensible structure. - Ks where I’m familiar with the literature: cap, security, biopolitics, necropolitics. - Ks where I’m not familiar with the literature: everything else. Theory - I don't have any biases on theory and will vote on literally any theory argument if you win offense. Every part of the theory debate is offense/defense and I'll treat your theory/procedural debates like a DA/CP debate. K-Affs If you do read a K-aff, be sure it has a relation to the topic and clear advocacy. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
My name is Jonathan Zanzuri, I debated at Lovejoy High School for 3 years. TOC qual (2022), NSDA Nats Top 10 (2022), UIL 5A 3rd place/2nd speaker (2022) Add: jzanzuri @ gmail . com General things - - I’m more comfortable with a CP/DA debate over a K debate, but I've had lots of experience with both and am down to judge anything. - Speed is fine, sign post - Tech > Truth - I have limited topic knowledge so don’t assume I know every acronym that you read. -Favorite arguments - Case turns (impact turns specifically), Advantage CPs, Politics DAs, T. Disadvantages - This is the argument I'm most comfortable with. I have a particular affinity for the politics disadvantage. When reading a disad, be sure to give a clear explanation of the internal link scenario and proper impact weighing (no "nuclear war" and just moving on). - I believe that in most cases, the link is more important for determining the direction of risk than uniqueness. The exceptions are when the uniqueness can be definitively determined rather than probabilistic Counterplans - The more case-specific, the better. If you're going to try to go for a permutation, paint a world of the perm instead of just saying "we'll do both". You need offense on why the perm is better than the CP, I.e. solvency deficits, DAs, etc. Won't judge kick unless explicitly told to do so. For CP theory, I don’t lean either way and won’t care how abusive the CP is as long as you can win the theory debate. Topicality - I default to competing interpretations but you should always be reading reasonability in the 2ac. The more topic-specific the definition, the better. Treat T like a DA debate and weigh the standards/voters. - I personally love T debates and will evaluate them through an offense/defense paradigm. I don't have much experience on this topic so I'm not used to the norms on T. - There shouldn't be a T round without a case list. - Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense. Kritiks - Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik. - I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. - make sure to be highly organized with a comprehensible structure. - Ks where I’m familiar with the literature: cap, security, biopolitics, necropolitics. - Ks where I’m not familiar with the literature: everything else. Theory - I don't have any biases on theory and will vote on literally any theory argument if you win offense. Every part of the theory debate is offense/defense and I'll treat your theory/procedural debates like a DA/CP debate. K-Affs If you do read a K-aff, be sure it has a relation to the topic and clear advocacy. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
Contact Information
email: jzanzuri@gmail.com
cell: 818 2880163
office: 818 2880163
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Congress Region
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
2
I will travel to: 1 2 3 5 6 7 8
