Iannacone,+Justin

Cypress Bay High 16’ University of Pennsylvania 20’

I competed for four years in LD on the national and local level.

PENN 17: I do not know any of the topic lit or stock positions for this resolution, so don't assume I'll recognize the intricacies of your plans or topical cases if you don't explain them. Conflicts: Cypress Bay, Bronx Science

Overview: I think debate is what the participants make of it. I will avoid intervening in what positions debaters read or how “better” debating is defined as much as possible. This means I will be as tab as possible and I will evaluate almost any argument that has a warrant.

Positions not to read: - Racism, sexism, homo/transphobia, etc. good - Genocide good - Positions that justify an in-round action that inhibits my able to adjudicate the round or your opponent’s ability to freely participate (i.e. damaging property, trying to sign the ballot)


 * All of the following are subject to change if you win an argument. You shouldn't feel forced to conform to me if it inhibits how you like to debate.

__LD Paradigm:__ Quick Theory Defaults: - No RVI’s - Competing interps - Text of the interp - T and Theory are drop the arg

Theory: I recognize the importance of theory as a check on abuse and as a strategic tool. However, if you are planning on reading frivolous theory or a super technical theory strat, you shouldn’t pref me highly. I also really dislike voting off out-of-round abuse unless there is some clear link to an in-round structural disadvantage. I also think that if you plan on reading disclosure theory you should consider a more strategic shell to read.

Tricks and spikes: Eh, if you want to read them go ahead but I’m probably not going to flow all of your blips.

K’s/Micropol: I ran a lot of these positions in high school and I’m totally cool with them if they have a clear framework for me to evaluate. I am not super well versed in high-theory, so explain these arguments a bit more.

Framework debate: Go for it.

LARP debate: I’m always down for a good LARP debate as long as there is clear weighing. Really inventive and interesting positions come out of these debates (hey, maybe we can learn about the topic) but messy util debates with no weighing are the worst.

__POLICY Paradigm:__ Pretty similar to my view of debate expressed above, you should always read the argument you're most comfortable with. I'm fine with topical or non-topical positions, but if you have a non-topical advocacy you should be prepared to justify your articulation of the resolution (or lack thereof). Make your weighing as clear and efficient as possible.

Speaker points: I base speaks mostly off your effective execution of a strategy and the quality of your positions. If you read a really unique, intelligent response to a position you’re likely to get higher speaks if you implement it well. I will never give lower than a 27.5 unless you say something rude, offensive, or refuse to flash/share your case. Just be nice and have fun.

If you have any questions about a position or my preferences about something not discussed here, feel free to ask me before the round.