Cancro,+Peter+P.

My name is Peter P. Cancro. I debate for 4 years in HS for Lakeland District Debate (Westchester County NY), and for 3 semesters for the University of Pittsburgh. I have been judgeing since I graduated in 2002, and officially coaching since mid-year 2008. I coach for Newburgh Enlarged Central School District, more commonly refered to as Newburgh or NFA. I also serve as sole-residence hall director for Dartmouth Debate Workshop and co-residence hall director for Dartmouth Debate Institute. I judge about 80 to 100 debates in a given year.

In terms of actual judgeing philosphy, I have always ascribed to something like it, but after having read it will openly admit to plagiarizing Micheal Antonucci's post from this very website as my personal judging philosophy. more specifically, the following is 100% accurate:

"I have very few absolute preferences in debate. The vast majority of my theoretical preferences are *weak default settings,* which can be changed by analysis and successful argument resolution. Some meta-questions, however, are not subject to dispute: Speech times, the process of assigning speaker points, and the assignation of a single loss and a single win cannot be debated. Honesty is axiomatic. Therefore, if you fabricate evidence, or deliberately misrepresent the portion of evidence that you read, you will lose, regardless of arguments you might make to justify your behavior. Similarly, a degree of respect for your opponents is axiomatic. I would not tolerate a team flipping over their opponents' table or setting fire to evidence; I also would not tolerate categories of hate speech that would make it emotionally impossible for a team to continue. Thus, for example, if a team were to deliberately assail their female opponents with misogynistic language, I would strongly consider voting against them even in the absence of relevant argumentation. My major meta-evaluative standard is simply my ability to grasp an argument with a degree of certainty. I need to fully get it to vote on it. I cannot, therefore, look a team in the face and tell them that I vote against them on arguments that I don't understand. A few consequences flow from this standard. First, I tend to reject unwarranted voters. Secondly, I hold kritik debates to a higher standard of explanation than many other arguments. This is not because I lack sympathy for these arguments. Their meaning, however, is contested, which introduces a degree of ambiguity. When a team says "impact" to politics, I will generally understand their shorthand. "Alternative" to a kritik (or "permutation" to a counterplan) can mean several different things. Debaters need to resolve that ambiguity if they wish to avoid intervention on my part. I flow. Generally, I flow well. I flow imperfectly, however, like anyone else, and I don't apologize for occasionally missing a warrant, subline of analysis, or cite."

Beyond that, I would add on the axiomatic list that "extinction" is not a tag, and while I will still flow it and try to objectively analyse it, a responce of "this doesnt constitute an arguemnt and should be ignored until it is explained as such" as 100% take out of that impact. Also, I attempt to flow the text of cards, so if you think you are allowed to be unclear or should just speed through them as fast as possible, that will hurt you more both on speaker points and probability of intervention with me then with other judges. A related point is that I view calling for evidance as intervention; the depaters ought present, and then debate, the evidance in such a fashion that actually reading it on the judges part would be redundant or automatic intervention on the grounds that niether team argued or contested the content of the card or relevance of said content. The only other absolutes I maintain is that the 2NR must be protected by my intervention from new 2AR arguments, has (s)he has no means of doing so themsleves.

The rest of my beliefs are treated as "weak preferences", and can easily be changed by the arguments made. Absent relevant argumentation, the following is true: -Evidance is more credible then analytics. More recent evidance is more credible then older evidance. Evidance from sources without vested interests are more credible. -Whether evaluating evidance or analytics, scientific studies > empirics > consensus (AKA conventional wisdom) > logic/reasoning > opinions/beliefs > unwarranted assertions -Offense remains in some mitigated form if the only responce is defensive. However, dropped defense is 100% take out of whatever it was responsive to. IF the defense is better supported by the evidance or an order of analyses higher in terms of its warrant (IE, the defense uses an empirical warrant while the offense's warrant is based on conventional wisdom) then the defense is again 100% effective. -The aff must have a topical plan that is a policy option, enacted by some part or all of the United States of America's Federal Government (USFG). Topicality is thus a de facto voting issue. -I could type out hundreds of more of these, but they are all fiarly common sense and, since they are only defaults, they should be completely irrelevant b/c the smart sophisticated debaters will advocate the versions of these rules and preconceptions that best support thier positions and clash with thier opponents within the debate so that everything, inclduing how I evaluate the round, and the "role of the ballot" or reason for decision, is clearly articulated by the debaters themsleves.

Above all, keep in mind that intelligent arguments, clash, and depth of warrant/thought are the qualities I love in a debate, and that sloppy flows/line-by-line, ships in the night, and lack of discussion of warrants/evidance are the qualities that make me run from a debate screaming into the night.