Garofalo,+Paul

Hello:

I debated LD for four years from 2005 to 2009 or something like that. I am debating APDA style parli debate in college. I judge LD.

My basic judging philosophy is simple: the AC tries to prove the resolution true, the NC tries to prove the negation of the resolution true. I then look to the value premise and value criterion to determine a method to use in the particular round for demonstrating the resolution true/not true. I then look to the contentions, their extensions, and the relative weight of those extensions in order to determine whether or not one side wins/loses.

Anything in this can easily be altered by a debater providing an argument as to why I should deviate from it, such as an argument that proves the resolution true without a criterion, an argument saying that I should look to something other than truth, etc. The only preset standard that I require here is that the explanation for why I deviate is clear and the alternative form of analysis is also clear.

On specific subjects:

Speed: I don't mind speed, I prefer it if the speed is used in a useful way. If the speed is too much, I will indicate it as such. The main problem with speed generally is that people slur words together, so try to avoid doing that.

Theory: If a theory debate comes to light I am willing to disregard it if I am unconvinced that there is actual abuse, regardless of whether or not it is cold dropped. This is not to discourage reasonable theory, as theory debates are very enjoyable to watch at times. Just don't be dumb. Unclear and confusing theory is highly presumed against, and most likely the winner of theory will be the clearer debater.

Critical arguments: I like these. Two caveats: one, don't abuse an author (e.g. quote an author and claim that he says something he didn't say) and two, I have to understand you. If I don't understand you, you won't win. This means that it might be useful to go slower and to make a good critical argument. Good critical arguments have clear mechanisms to evaluate and weigh between one another. There is probably no argument I won't vote for if it is well made. (In other words: I would vote in favor of human extinction if someone made that argument. I have made that argument before.)

Solvency: I think this term is overused. So, this is my take on it: I don't care if the aff isn't 100% solvent 100% of the time. If solvency is really an issue, I will look to who better solves for the relative case, given all the potential harms, etc. If the aff can show that they solve most of the problem most of the time, that should be good enough. Of course, a well structured argument to the contrary will be accepted, but it has to be made in round.

Speaks: Standard is 27-28. If I don't like you, you get a 25-26. If you offend me, annoy me, or if I think you're dumb, you get less than a 25. If you impress me, run interesting cases, and do smart things in a round, you get a 29-30.

Blippy arguments: I hate them. A sentence generally is not an argument. I don't care if there are five or ten of them, if they are a sentence long and stupid, then they are stupid. They will quickly convince me that the debater using them is dumb. The claim "no impact" or "no warrant" is also only good if in fact they don't exist. To deal with blippy arguments in front of me just extend your argument and point out that there is no warrant, etc. to the argument. I will always prefer substantive engagement with an opponent's warrants.

Contradictions: If you contradict yourself in a meaningful way, I will hate you and think you're dumb. This does not mean that you cannot run a disjunctive position (e.g. say morality doesn't exist and then argue with the opponent on morality), but it does mean that you can't be dumb (e.g. say you solve for capitalism better and then argue that capitalism is good). If you're about to run a contradictory position, think very carefully about it.

Empirics: They are good, but annoying. I will not require an empiric in order for a person to make an analytical claim, but if an analytical claim contradicts an empiric I will go with the empiric. At the same time, most empirics are subject to their own problems, so I am sympathetic to people who demonstrate the misapplication of an empiric.

My expressions: Do not rely on them to tell you what I think. If I am laughing, that does not mean I agree or disagree with your argument. If I am scowling, it does not mean anything. Also, don't try emotional appeals in front of me. I don't care about that stuff.

Cheers