Giordano,+Cayman

Cayman Giordano
Currently under revision for the 2011-2012 topics.
 * I judge for various Howard County schools in Maryland, I've actively worked with the space topic over the summer, and I'm comfortable with pretty much any style, position, etc. I've been involved with CX debate since the late '90s.
 * I've judged a lot of rounds (triple digits) each year for the past few years; I may be new to some topic-specific jargon, but should be fine otherwise.
 * I'll be a little more receptive to T/Theory at Wake/Greenhill than later in the year. If you can fill 5 minutes on it and think it's a viable option, you're probably right.
 * If I'm watching a "clash of civilizations" debate, I'm predisposed towards the traditional model (and debate being good), but find myself voting for the non-traditional team 55%-60% of the time because they're often less dogmatic/more responsive/take less for granted within the round.
 * If you're unclear, I'll tell you. If you don't get any clearer, your speech and my flow won't be the same.
 * There are some arguments I find to be morally reprehensible. Unfortunately, I'm equally offended by a team not having an answer to them.
 * Smart analytics can beat dumb cards, especially if they're comparative.
 * It's the debater's job to explain cards to me in the round; I'll rarely call for cards to compensate for shortages of analysis or clarity. If I ask for a card, it's probably because teams are disputing its actual content, not because I want to see if "this evidence is on fire".
 * I'll vote along the path of least resistance: whichever team I have to do the least work to vote for is probably walking out with the ballot.

=
Basically anything goes, what framework I use depends on what you tell me to and substantiate, throughout the round. Voting issues are likewise up for grabs, whichever aspects of the round you argue are most important are the ones I'll primarily take into consideration. (in the total absence of any such theory from both teams, I'll default to a legislative policy-making framework, but not out of any attachment) ======

=
When I have to weigh evidence, I tend to prefer the cards that a team compares in the round to cards that I personally know to be more or less credible. If a card is untrue, power-tagged, or otherwise misleadingly arranged, it's the other team's responsibility to bring that to my attention. I don't like voting on what someone didn't say when there are plenty of arguments on the flow that both teams are actively advocating. ======

=
CX matters: whether it's binding or non-binding is of course decided in the round, but it shows how much you've made each argument your own, and what's as new to you as the other team. Rebuttals that build off CX certainly aren't required by any means, but they will make your jobs easier. Open CX is of course fine if both teams agree to it, just make sure that one team member doesn't monopolize both CX periods while the other says nothing, or it will probably reflect in speaker points. ======

=
Kritiks, kritikal affirmatives, and performances all have their place; I'm far more inclined to vote for them if they make the round better and create debate than if they're not related to the rest of the round, or are being used as a means to avoid debate at all costs. Like any other arguments, there's good and bad ways to run them. ======