Ciocca,+Daniel

I am a parent judge and novice debate coach with experience judging at local and national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. My judging philosophy is simple. I believe that an ordinary citizen should be able to listen to the reasoned arguments of two debaters and come to a logical conclusion as to who's argument and evidence is more persuasive. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand faster then conversational) and supported by convincing evidence. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST tie it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.

Plans and Counter-plans: All good.

Theory: If there is significant violation in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.

Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links as an excuse to run the K you want to run. I am a free market micro and macroeconomics professor/teacher. While I always try to maintain impartiality, I often struggle voting on a case that is running anti-capitalism.

DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here

Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed