Caffo,+Geoff

Geoff Caffo Graduated 2000 from Westwood HS (Austin, TX) Event: LD LD judge since 10/06

As a former policy debater I like good line-by-line and a clean flow, and I’m fine with speed as long as you don’t expect me to get 10 analytics on the flow in less than 4 seconds (quality is preferable to quantity – speed enables more explanation/analysis and I’ll dock speaks for blippiness). I like good evidence, but a card doesn’t say anything until you tell me how to use it. I demand clear extension in the 1AR and NR if you want access to your constructive arguments – that said, the 1AR can extend by cross-application if pressed for time, and the 2AR can follow suit as long as the extensions aren’t through unanswered ink. I’m really looking for both debaters to make sure they have access to the framework they need to gain offense. If the framework is contested with no clear winner, I’m going to pick the one that’s been dominantly used in the round and proceed from there. I’m not huge on theory in LD, particularly T, and I’m very lenient with the 1AR if they make a solid attempt to answer the violation and if there’s a counter-definition from the AC (meaning I’m disinclined to buy that the negative standards are sufficient to beat any counterdef just because the 1AR is short on time). Definition debates are absolutely fine, but I think they’re important for establishing the framework of the round and not for slapping down a pre-standard voter.

I default to looking for a standard and offense that’s linked to it. That standard can take any form you’d like and be called whatever (criterion, standard, burden, whatever), but it’s still a method by which I can adjudicate the round. Defensive arguments are usually a waste of time, as are impacts to a defunct framework. Defense can be useful if you’re going to use it to preclude essential arguments in the round but dropping random defense all over the flow wastes everyone’s time. Use of a value/criterion structure is optional, and I like direct refutation as a negative strategy if the AC framework allows for significant turns (offense, people, offense!).

Basically, the reason I prefer judging LD to CX is that structurally LD allows for deeper exploration of fewer issues. Naturally, my favorite rounds exemplify this principle. I want debaters to examine how arguments can be linked to standards in unconventional ways. I want to be told, explicitly, how to evaluate the round in a way that doesn’t disagree with the basic tenets of logic. At the end of the round I’ll evaluate arguments in the order that I’ve been told to. If I haven’t been instructed on how to do so, I’ll do it in a way that makes sense to me. If you don’t want to worry about what makes sense to me then tell me how to do it! In a muddled round I’m not afraid to vote for the debater who at least tried to clear up the decision calculus with some impact analysis.

Event: CX CX judge since 10/06

I did 4 years of policy in high school, but that was a while ago and I don’t judge it nearly as often as LD so go easy on the acronyms and more obscure jargon (both theory and topic-specific acronyms). Basically, that means explaining the concept of an argument before telling me why I should accept/reject it. In any case, I prefer good policy or critical theory clash to debate theory issues, with the exception of T, which I’m more than happy to vote on if it’s argued well. That does NOT mean I like 3 blippy T violations at the top of the 1NC that all get kicked in the block, however, and I am willing to listen to warranted reverse voters on timesuck grounds. Theory debates usually decide how ok I am with conditionality, contradictory negative positions, etc., but I’m rusty on the theory so slow it down and translate.

My default paradigm is probably policymaking, but I can easily slip into a games-playing fairness paradigm if the debate goes to framework level. I have no problem with kritiks, but please run them well (that means being able to answer CX questions in real English, and not by rereading dense and jargon-laden cards) and don’t assume I’m familiar with the K, the author, etc.. In-round impacts are fine, discourse links as well, but I’m pretty tab when it comes to non-traditional arguments like this so don’t take it for granted that I’ll vote on a contested in-round impact – better to try to turn case or outweigh it so you have some policy impacts to fall back on. Politics disads are fun, but if I don’t understand the story by the 2NR you haven’t done your job and I’m not inclined to vote on them. Spending disads are almost never well-warranted throughout and I’ve rarely voted on them. Hyperbolic impacts are all well and good but keep in mind that if you’re giving me a framework that says terrorism, or environmental degradation, or nuclear war, or whatever, is the most terrible impact imaginable and the only kind I should look to, don’t waste your time providing other impacts that you’ve just told me not to weigh.

I’m much more interested in hearing good analysis than cards, and in a close round I’ll be looking to depth of argumentation over number of arguments. I virtually never read cards after the round unless both teams are telling me to read the same one and I don’t have a choice. Reading a card is not quite the same thing as making an argument – cards can contain arguments but it’s still up to the debaters to extend and apply those warrants where it seems appropriate on the flow.