Vitolo,+Christina

High school specific portion: I try to keep as open a mind as possible when it comes to judging high school debates. I think my role as an educator is the most important, if not sole concern in judging high school debates. The information below should serve as a guide, but please do not feel restricted by my ideology. Debate what you are good at and I'll be happy. That said:

I debated 3 years for the University of Central Florida. Each debate round is defined by the debaters during the round. I believe that debate can be both a game and a site to actualize change, particularly within the debate community. I keep a very close flow of the round, but am more likely to evaluate things wholistically. I definitely will read evidence when necessary, but I do not believe you need carded evidence to beat an argument, especially a ridiculous one.

__ Framework: __ I debated both with and without a plan text. I will vote on framework if the aff is out-debated, but in the case of affs about the lived experience of exclusion in debate, I will not be happy about it. I would much rather you engage these types of affs on the actual substance of their argument.

__ Topicality: __ I love topicality. It was my favorite strategy against policy affs, and I have a slight bias to competing interpretations. See the framework notes for running T against other types of affs.

__ Other random notes: __ My affs were always grounded in the resolution and had social justicey impacts. That is what I understand best, but it doesn't mean I'm going to do work for you after the round. I particularly enjoy DAs that are grounded in IR/science/math. My background is in science (specifically Molecular Biology and Engineering). This being my first year of judging, I probably have some unconscious biases I am not aware of. I promise to give every effort to being open to any style of argumentation, and if those unconscious biases become conscious, I will update my paradigm to reflect that.