Rosado,+Zoi

Background
Woodward Academy Class of 2013 New York University Class of 2017

Official Paradigm
“I'm a critic of argument, not a blank slate. What constitutes a good argument? What makes an argument persuasive? How can we—as individuals and as a society—make good decisions? Those are the questions that most interest me and that motivate my involvement in this activity. What does that mean for debaters? I am not interested in making effective policies (or forging activist strategies or confronting regimes of knowledge-power or [insert "role of the ballot" here] except as it relates to the process of constructing and evaluating arguments and making decisions.” – Bill Batterman

This quote pretty much sums up my philosophy. It is impossible to be a “blank slate.” Like any other human being, I will come into your debate with my personal biases and opinions. Arguments that barely meet the requirement of being an argument and rely on a minute detail sound ridiculous to non-debaters because they **are** ridiculous. Therefore, I will not find your process counterplans and generic positions very persuasive.

My goal within a debate round, while judging, is to determine which set of arguments–those advanced by the affirmative or those advanced by the negative–logically should take priority over the other. Therefore, the method you, as a debater, choose to present your arguments is integral to my assessment of those arguments, perhaps even more so than the substance of the argument.

Presentation Preferences
Slow down… no actually, slow down. You will rarely, if ever, win a debate by “out-spreading” the other team. Quick, blippy extensions and short, under-highlighted cards do not constitute an argument. Remember, I will first and foremost judge the way you have presented and explained your arguments. Consequently, clarity and clear analysis will make an impression of me and prove that you are not another debate robot that can read many words off a computer (robots don’t get very good speaker points).
 * Speaker Points—**

Cross-ex is an extra three minutes of speech time that rarely gets utilized to its full potential. I pay attention and flow CX… use this time wisely.
 * Cross Examination—**

“I f*ing love Cross-X. Most people don't care enough about cross-x. If you use your Cross-x well (eg, if it is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate), my happiness and your speaker points will increase.” – Nick Miller.


 * Style—**
 * //Make connections//.** The best way to get higher speaker points is to make a positive, lasting impression on the judge. Stand out from the crowd. I appreciate humility, humor and intelligence… don’t be afraid to let your personality show. “I'm emotional: if you're connecting with me and inspiring me with passionate argumentation and intelligence, I'll want to vote for you.” – Bill Batterman.

Please allow me to amend my prior statement – do not be memorable for being offensive. Ethics violations, racism, sexism, and offensive language are all things that will get you a zero and a loss. Be classy.

Argument Preferences
Yes, every Woodward debater has included this quote in their judge philosophy. It’s partially because we idolize Coach B, and mostly because it perfectly describes our opinion on the matter.
 * General—**

“I enjoy elegance, creativity, and intelligence. I don't so much enjoy brute force, trickery, or obfuscation. If your argument requires the other team to drop something in order for you to win, I'll probably think it's stupid. If your argument requires the other team to be confused about something in order for you to win, I'll probably think it's stupid. On the other hand, if your argument engages with the other team at a fundamental level, I'll probably think it's good—even if its "weird" or counter-intuitive. If it's creative, even better… I'm much more impressed by students who forge their own path and bring some of their personality into their arguments and their debates.” – Bill Batterman

I probably err affirmative, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Counterplans that do the plan do not logically prove that the aff should not be done. Ideally, conditionality is bad for debate but one critique and one counterplan is reasonable. I default to reject the argument–if you want me to reject the team, slow down and do some real impact work as to why rejecting the argument is not enough. Slow down when reading your theory blocks… more than any other debate argument, theory requires persuasion and clarity.
 * Theory—**

Affirmatives should be topical. The role of the judge is to determine whether a plan meets the resolution, and whether it is desirable… not set the ideal curriculum for the topic. Topicality should not be in the 1NC unless it is a 2NR possibility and the plan is actually outside the resolution. I am persuaded by reasonability.
 * Topicality—**

If a disadvantage is not intrinsic, it is not relevant. Therefore, I am terrible for the politics disadvantage. A paragraph from a media journal that has the words “Obama,” “pushing,” and “capital” does not constitute an internal link. See Nasir Nanjee’s rant on politics internal links for more details. In my opinion, evidence matters most when determining whether or not an argument links to the plan.
 * Disadvantages—**

However, case-specific disadvantages can be extremely strategic and persuasive. The more specific, the better. These debates open to a host of good turns case analysis that makes for an intellectually stimulating debate. I do believe in absolute defense. “1% risk of the disad means you vote negative” means nothing to me. No… it doesn’t. If you don’t wina link, you don’t turn the case. Affirmative teams, case can turn the disad–make that argument.

If they are competitive with a substantial net benefit with a solvency advocate, love them. Unfortunately, debaters rarely read that kind of counterplans. I repeat, process counterplans are bad for debate. Affirmative debaters can very easily convince me that these counterplans are bad for debate; however, the theory objections must be impacted. Affirmative whining about this making debate harder for them is not persuasive or convincing.
 * Counterplans—**

I love them. The more specific the critique, the better. I will vote negative on a generic critique if a team does case-specific analysis. Use the 1AC evidence to articulate the link and be explicit about what the alternative is. 1A’s, use 1NC cross-ex to nail down what the alt does and how it functions in the debate. If it’s a floating PIK, that should be obvious after cross-ex.
 * Critiques**—

Framework is an important debate. Too often, though, the affirmative uses framework to whine and does not impact their claims. In-round abuse is necessary to make framework a voting issue – I personally think if the affirmative team wins their framework, it is a reason to weigh affirmative impacts rather than automatically vote affirmative.

“Ideologues are annoying whether they're going for Heidegger or the Heg Good K.” – Bill Batterman. Being able to give a five minute K overview and rant about the words epistemology and ontology does not make you a good K debater… don’t use the critique as a crutch. Be knowledgeable and make smart arguments.

Affirmative teams… a 2AC that only answers the critique with framework, perm double bind and cede the political will probably lose the debate. Whether or not you like critiques, respond to the thesis of the critique, or you are only helping the negative team out.

Miscellaneous
(Stolen from Jason Sigalos's Judge Philosophy) Presumption goes to less change, not necessarily the negative.

It is the burden of the team advancing the argument to both explain their position and prove that it is correct. The affirmative needs to win their advantages; the negative needs to win their DA.

I am very willing to grant absolute defense, especially if I feel an argument is silly.

Smart analytics = good. You don’t need evidence to make an argument.

Evidence v. Debating—if an argument is conceded and explained (or if one team is out-debating another), I won’t look to evidence. If arguments are well contested (at the margins), evidence is very important to me. Better evidence > more evidence. Evidence > spin.