Pasquinelli,+Sydney

Sydney Pasquinelli
- Debated 4 years at Wayne State (2 time NDT), - Coached 2 years at Wake Forest (2009-11), - Currently coaching (4th year) at University of Pittsburgh
 * __Experience__**


 * __Philosophy__**

I think you should run what arguments you want to run and do what you are good at doing and/or convicted about. I’m not tabula rasa and I will give you my opinion after the round, but I frequently vote for arguments in debate that I do not believe to be the better argument in reality. Also, my opinions about certain arguments are often influenced, if not altered, as a result of specific debates that I see; I enjoy judging because debaters can make me think about things in different ways, so I encourage innovation and creativity. I enjoy many types of arguments in debates, but the most interesting debates for me are the ones where there is a lot of clash. I have a lot of experience with policy arguments and enjoy policy debates that focus around implementation of plan. If the debate begins with an affirmative that does not center around implementation of a topical plan, then I am still looking for clash //from both teams.// That is, I do not like when the negative has no strategy that clashes against the affirmative and the neg is gonna be behind in my opinion (e.g. framework alone without answering the aff). However, I also expect the affirmative to defend their 1AC throughout the debate - if the aff becomes a moving target or shifts out of relevant offense I am sympathetic to theory arguments. I think that the negative gets the ground outside of the resolution. I am cool with counterplans and critiques, but with a few caveats: I don’t think that representations can be severed out of. Debate is not only a game but a communication activity and debaters should have to defend their justifications as well as their advocacy statements. That being said, the process for determining how to weigh the impacts between the reps and the advantages is difficult and contingent upon the debaters' arguments in the round. I tend to err on the side of reasonability over competing interpretations. I think that on questions of topicality and theory, a team has to win that the other team has an unreasonable interpretation in order to win the ballot. I do not read speeches during rounds. I appreciate debaters that I can understand during speeches. This doesn't mean go slow - it means be clear. Being clear will help ur points.... On the issue of points, I do not give higher or lower points depending on ur style of argument. I try to keep up with the average point scale and adjust my points relative to that. I will deduct speaker points for students that are disrespectful to me or other debaters. Other than that, I judge points on the strength of the arguments made (strength measured by clash not my opinion) and the ethos/persuasiveness as a speaker. Honestly, giving out points is the hardest part of judging. I try to be consistent on a round-by-round basis, but I mess up sometimes. So I'm sorry if I give you or others lower or higher points than you think you deserve. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: 'arial black','avant garde'; font-size: medium;">Please be prompt with jumping speeches. Please look at me during the round sometimes. Too many debaters get lost in their computers these days.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: 'arial black','avant garde'; font-size: medium;">PICS - If the negative finds a way to read a counterplan or a K that results in the //entirety// of the affirmative (e.g. process CPs or egregious floating PIKs), it will be very easy for the affirmative to win the permutation in front of me. I do not thing the negative has negated the aff in this case.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: 'arial black','avant garde'; font-size: medium;">K ALTS - If the negative is defending an alt, I would prefer it not be ultra-vague. For example, "reject the aff" is not an alternative to me - it is the role of the negative. If the status quo would be a better option, make that clear. If the alternative does something positive, make that clear in the alternative text. I don't like moving targets.