Scorpiniti,+Gina

I did LD for Valley High School in West Des Moines, IA for 4 years. I qualified to the TOC in my junior and senior years and cleared at the TOC in my senior year. I coach students from Torrey Pines, Westford Academy, and Vestavia.

General
 * Debate how you want to, and I will evaluate the arguments that are won in the round. I evaluate rounds based on the framework**: the framework sets up what impacts matter** and whoever wins impacts to the winning framework wins (**an ethical framework or a role of the judge/ballot structure are both examples of frameworks**).
 * Weighing and explaining the function of your args should be your top priority. I need to be able to understand how your arguments function in order to vote on them.
 * Speaks are based on argument quality, strategy, weighing, crystallization, and cx strat
 * There is a difference between being rude and being assertive/confident/sassy. Don't be rude by attacking your opponent, or anyone else, on a personal level. Debate should be fun!
 * I have a relatively low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments, but I need more explanation if you're doing any comparison or argument interaction. Also, you should extend the args you want me to vote on through both speeches.
 * I will ignore new implications of args in the 2
 * I will probably not call for anything unless there is a disagreement on the text of the card/interp/whatever. So generally speaking, if I don’t have it flowed the first time, I won’t vote on it.
 * (When I say I default to x throughout my paradigm, that means that x will be true if there are absolutely no arguments in the round for or against it and it is a necessary component of the round; i.e. if there is a theory debate and neither debater provides any reasons for or against competing interps or reasonability, I will default competing interps. Please don't make me default to anything)

Speed
 * ** Slow down ** **a lot on tag lines, short analytics (spikes and blips), theory interps, and advocacy texts.** If I don't get the argument on my flow, I won’t vote on it.
 * if you want me to flow something verbatim (like a theory interp or advocacy text), cut your speed in half.
 * If I say clear or slow, I have probably already missed a few sentences.
 * crystallizing is important
 * if I have to say clear 3 times without any improvement, speaks will start to suffer

Arguments that will be difficult to win in front of me:
 * disclosure theory
 * flashing theory
 * shells if I can’t verify the violation. For example, disclosure theory or speed theory (I couldn’t tell you their wpm or whether the case was already broken).
 * new theory in the 2ar
 * asking your opponent to defend something in CX and then running theory on them for the thing you asked them to defend
 * Author indicts that talk about the character of your authors rather than their actual arguments (e.g. Kant was a racist)
 * Arguments that say you can run for/sign my ballot
 * Speed Ks
 * If you are a privileged white male, or even just white, it’s going to be hard for you to persuade me to vote for you on a Wilderson K
 * Don't be blatantly offensive by saying racism good, sexism good, rape good, etc. I will dock speaks if you are offensive, and, if you are incredibly offensive by, for example, making rape good arguments, I will probably just drop you.

Ks
 * Just because I didn’t run Ks in high school doesn’t mean I won’t vote for them. I think that Ks do need to have some kind of framework though like a ROB/ROJ or an ethical framework so I know how to evaluate the impacts of the K.
 * I think good K methods debates can be quite fun/educational debates to watch, but you should be clear about how your arguments function in round.
 * I won’t be super knowledgable on K lit/terminology. I have some knowledge on some K authors, but it’s safe to assume I haven’t heard of your author so please explain your arguments thoroughly without relying on your k lit jargon.
 * This also means you shouldn’t try to confuse your opponent with K lit terminology because I might be confused too.
 * If you are a privileged white male, or even just white, it’s going to be hard for you to persuade me to vote for you on a Wilderson K.
 * I do not assume that the claim that Ks should be impacted to an ethical framework is atrocious. It depends on how it's warranted.

The LARP
 * I'm not predisposed against larp debates but I know almost no policy jargon (I forgot what winners win was about a year ago) so I may not be a great judge for a very technical larp debate

Theory
 * ** Please do weighing on the theory debate. ** I hate muddled theory debates more than anything and I won't be great at evaluating them
 * I default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the argument. For competing interps, I assume that both debaters should have an interp/counterinterp and debate about which interp is a better rule for debate. Additionally, under this assumption, defense on theory is not sufficient to win.
 * I default to drop the debater on topicality
 * I get bored by generic theory debates “neg must defend sqou” "aff must run plan" etc. I’ll vote on them but I’d much rather not hear them, so please try to be nuanced.
 * If you get into a heavy RVI debate, CI vs reasonability debate, or drop the arg/debater debate (or any other paradigmatic questions), you need to do very clear and heavy weighing & crystallization
 * I prefer to see theory run against actual abuse: I dislike obviously frivolous theory used to avoid debating substance. T his preference won't have a bearing on the round/speaks (it's just a preference given that what is "frivolous" is subjective.) But still, use your best judgment and try not to because it will make me happier if you don't.
 * If a voter of fairness has been presented and conceded, I will adjudicate based on it even if it’s accidentally not extended.

Framework
 * If you debate framework a lot, you'll probably be making framework preclusion arguments. **You should weigh your preclusion arguments against your opponent's preclusion arguments or the round will get real muddled real quick.**
 * Don't assume that because I debated framework a lot in high school, that I will know //exactly// what all of your authors say. For example, while I debated against lots of Kantian frameworks in high school, I rarely read them myself, so you shouldn't automatically assume that I will 100% understand your very complex Kantian framework. I probably will understand a lot of it, but you should explain your arguments anyways just as you normally would.
 * I love to see good line-by-line argumentation
 * You could line by line a ROB/ROJ framework just as you would an ethical framework, and I would not mind (sometimes ROB/ROJs are not sufficiently warranted).
 * I do not assume that the claim that Ks should be impacted to an ethical framework is atrocious. It depends on how it's warranted.

Really Tricky stuff/Weird abusive burden structures
 * Don't assume that because I, at times, read weird/tricky/abusive cases with weird burden structures (e.g. lots of florida schools do this currently) that I will automatically understand yours. Please explain how your advocacy functions. Otherwise, you cannot be upset with my lack of understanding of your position.
 * Not sure if skep falls in this category, but I didn't read skep at all in high school so don't automatically assume that I will know your authors already. You will need to explain your skep arguments just like you would with any other argument.

Misc
 * I default truth testing; however, I will view the round through the lens that the debaters implicitly agree on if arguments for comparative worlds or truth testing aren't made.
 * I definitely think terminal defense exists
 * I will default to presuming aff, but it is unlikely that the round will devolve to presumption unless you force it to that layer, at which point you should have made arguments about which way I should presume.

Quotes that I agree with from other paradigms ^_^
 * "I would prefer to see your own approach to the round, and don't want to impose dogmatic beliefs about debate on you. The judges I respected most were open-minded and spent time trying to make the right decisions." -Varun Bhave
 * "I have found that the debate round tends to be best when debaters debate their preferred style, rather than trying to overly adapt to a style they think their judge will prefer." -Jess Levy
 * "Please be nice to each other. It's just a debate tournament- don't be remembered as being the jerk at TOC. Your character is much more important than your record." -Lucy Korsakov
 * "LARP, framework, theory, kritiks, tricks, etc… are all fine. Since my belief that I should be tab is far stronger than my preference for or against any argument, I have found myself voting quite frequently for arguments that I didn’t like when I debated." -Michael Bogaty
 * "I know every judge says this, but SLOW DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY ON TAGS, SHORT ANALYTICS, AND THEORY INTERPS /ADVOCACY TEXTS. Similarly, I struggle to process dense philosophy at top speed, so it is advisable to slow down on those arguments." -Michael Bogaty
 * "I'd love if we didn't make a big deal about your opponent not flashing. That being said, if you are unwilling to flash then you should probably give your opponent your computer in their CX, prep, and speeches. And you obviously shouldn't ask them to flash if you won't. It'd be cool though if we didn't need to make this a huge deal though." -Leah Shapiro
 * "I won’t hesitate to lower speaks for rude post-round behavior like exaggerated expressions of confusion or loudly dropping objects" -Rahul Gosain

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.